Ὧν 








RY 


CIHM/ICMH CIHM/ICMH 
Microfiche Collection de 
Series. microfiches. 


a y ng C/o 





, 


Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut canadien de microreproductions historiques 


1982 





Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 


The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
original copy available for filming. Features of this 
copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
which may alter any of the images in the 
reproduction, or which may significantly change 
the usual method of filming, are checked below. - 


Coloured covars/ 
Couverture de couleur 


Covers damaged/ 
Couverture endommagée 


Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
Couverture restaurée et/ou pelliculée 


Cover title missing/ 
Le titre de couverture manque 


ΓἼ Coloured maps/ 
Cartes géographiques en couleur 


Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 


ΓῚ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
ι. ; Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 


Bound with other material/ 
Relié avec d'autres documents 


along interior margin/ 
Lare liure serrée peut causer de !’ombre ou de la 
distortion le long de la marge intérieure 


Blank leaves added during restoration may 
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
have been omitted from filming/ 

ll se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutées 
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
mais, lorsque cela était possible, ces pages n’ont 
pas été filmées. 


ΓΊ Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 


C] Additional comments:/ 
Commentaires supplémentaires; 


This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 


L'Institut a microfilmé le meilleur exemplaire 

qu'il lui a 6té possible de se procurer. Les détails 
de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-étre uniques du 
point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
modification dans la méthode normale de filmage 
sont indiqués ci-dessous. 


Coloured pages/ 
Pages de couleur 


Pages damaged/ 
Pages endommagées 


Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
Pages restaurées et/ou pelliculées 


Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
Pages décolorées, tachetées ou piquées 


Pages detached/ 
Pages détachées 


Showthrough/ 
Transparence 


Quality of print varies/ 
Qualité inégale de l‘impression 


Includes supplementary material/ 
Comprend du matériel supplémentaire 


Only edition available/ 
Seule édition disponible 


Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
slips, tissues, etc., have been refiimed to 
ensure the best possible image/ 

Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
obscurcies par un feuillet d’errata, une pelure, 
etc., ont 6té filmées ἃ nouveau de facon a 
obtenir la meilleure image possible. 


Ef ΓῚ ΓΙ ΓΖ A ὖ ΤῚ 


Ce document est fiimé au taux de réduction indiqué ci-dessous. 





10X 14X 18X 22% 26X 30X 
ga) ΤΠ ll AE ole SR Bl lw se 
12x 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X 





Ἵ 
ρ 
σ 
f' 





ails 
du 
difier 
une 
nage 


rrata 
{ 


pelure, 
na 


The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
to the generosity of: 


Library 
Trent University, Peterborough 


The images appearing here are the best quality 
possible considering tne condition and legibility 
of the original copy and in keeping with the 
filming contract specifications. 


Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
beginning with the front cover and ending on 
the last pags with a printed or illustrated impres- 
sion, or the back cover when appropriate. Ali 
other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
or illustrated impression. 


The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
shall contain the symbol — (meaning “CON- 
TINUED”), or the symbol VY (meaning “END”), 
whichever applies. 


Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
method: 


L’exemplaire filmé fut reproduit grace a la 
générosité de: 


Library 
Trent University, Peterborough 


Les images suivantes ont été reproduites avec le 
plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
de la netteté de l’axempiaire filmé, et en 
conformité avec les conditions du contrat de 
filmage. 


Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
papier est imprimée sont filmés en commencant 
par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
derniére page qui comporte une empreinte 
d‘impression ou d‘illustration, scit par le second 
piat. selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
Originaux sont filmés en commencant par ia 
premiére page qui comporte une empreinte 
d‘impression ou d’illustration et en terminant par 
la derniére page qui comporte une telle 
empreinto. 


Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
derniére image de chaque microfiche, selo: le 
cas: le symbole = signifie “A SUIVRE”’, le 
symbole Ψ signifie “FIN”. 


Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent étre 
filmés ἃ des taux de réduction différents. 
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour étre 
reproduit en un seul cliché, il est filmé a partir 
de l’angle supérieur gauche, de gauche a droite, 
et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
d'images nécessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
illustrent la méthode. 








ee νον. ti ee ςσὦοςςοὦὕ.ΒΔηὙ 
SS" ae 
ee ᾿ 
ὩΣ 





: ATHENIAN ARCHONS 


~~ 


OF THE 


THIRD AND SECOND CENTURIES 
BEFORE CHRIST. 


BY 


WILLIAM SCOTT FERGUSON, A.M. 


FELLOW OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY 


. 
A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY 
FOR THE DEGREE. OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
JUNE, 1899, 


ITHACA, N, Y. 
PRESS OF ANDRUS & CHURCH, 
1899. 








ATHENIAN ARCHONS 


OF THE 


THIRD AND SECOND CENTURIES 
BEFORE CHRIST. 


BY 


WILLIAM SCOTT FERGUSON, A.M. 


FELLOW OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY 


A THESIS PRESENTED TO ΤΕῈ FACULTY OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY 
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
JUNE, 1899. 


ITHACA, N. Y, 
PRESS OF ANDRUS & CHURCH, 


1899. 


NEBR NY I RENAN Se NAAR AAI RN | Se EEE ENN E ET TER TTIR NEI AY τραγίστυτατσν νιοκοντακυθον OK NON κιρραυστοκίσετι ες το TE 





a 














ὙΠ PO) NT RTY 
\ tS, 


iv se be 


NO LONG? ὺ τὰ : | 
OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, 


COPYRIGHT, 1899, 
BY CORNELI, UNIVERSITY 


ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 


f 


ERRATA. 

On page 21, note 1 in place of p. 29, n. 4. write p. 
18, n. 4.3; on page 21, note 4 in place of Ὁ. 44. write 
p. 27. ; on page 26, on page 29 δῇ 20 and 21 (in three 
places) and on page 43 ὃ 32 in place of Arrhenides 
write Arrheneides, 




























PREFACE. 


During the thirty-one years of the fourth century B.C., from 
352/1 till the end of the Lamian War, the prytany secretaries at 
Athens followed one another in the official order of their tribes.’ 
The oligarchy introduced a new arrangement for the short period 
of its government. It is not clear how the secretaries were 
chosen under Demetrios of Phaleron.* After 307/6 B.C., how- 
ever, the democracy returned to its earlier practice, and for every 
one of the following two hundred and eleven years we know 
which tribe furnished the secretary. 
| This knowledge we owe to the fact that throughout this period 
the official order of the secretaries’ tribes remained unbroken. 
The use of the official order is assured for the vears between 303/2 
and 299/8 B.C. After 299/8 B.C., wherever we know the 
sequence of a group of secretaries’ tribes, that sequence is the 
official order.’ ‘This proves that the official order remained in 
use throughout the period. In seven years,‘ well distributed 
over the two centuries, we are able, by means of connections es- 
tablished with external systems of chronology, to demonstrate 
that the tribe which held the secretaryship was the one 
which the official order demanded. This proves that the 
cr Official order remained in continuous use throuzhout the period. 
— Moreover, there are cases in which several secretaries are confined 
to a period of a few years by events recorded in inscriptions 
> passed during their terms in office. Had it been possible for a 
| tribe to hold the secretaryship in any or every year, it could only 
ibe due to an extraordinary coincidence that in none of these 








2 Wornell Studies, VII (1898), Ῥ. 34. 

᾿ ἽΙΡΙ4,, 4 12. 

ἮΝ, Ibid, p. 44 ἢ. 
'Ἂ ~ <> ‘Four of these are discussed in Cornell Studies, VII, p. 60 ff., two in A.J.P. 
SxIX (1898), p. 314 f., and one below, p. 74 f. 





ee 


JUN 39 1000 ἢν 


sy ca ONG 
“Ὁ ὁ 














iv The Athentan Archons. 


periods the secretaries belong to tribes forbidden by the official 
order. ‘The official order was demonstrably used in determining 
the sequence of the secretaries to the treasury board of Athena in 
the fourth century B.C.’ According to it the priests of Serapis 
at Delos in the second century B.C. held office.’ In the latter 
part of the fifth and the beginning of the fourth century B.C. the 
reverse of the official order determined the sequence of the secre- 
taries to the joint treasury board of Athena and The Other Gods.’ 
It was no strange thing, therefore, to find the official order em- 
ployed in the case of the prytany secretaries. In the face of this 
evidence careful scholars might still suspend judgment, if, in con- 
structing an archon list by means of the official order, events had 
to be so arranged that well attested historical facts were contra- 
dicted. Unfortunately well attested facts of Athenian history are 
rare in this period. Were they more numerous, undoubtedly 
they would supplement those we already have, not in contradict- 
ing, but in confirming, the arrangement of events necessitated 
by the new archon list. 

It is simply because we do know the tribe which held the secre- 
taryship in every one of these two hundred and eleven years, that 
it is possible to draw up a new archon list. My predecessors in 
this work could claim to do no more than assign an approximate 
year to five-sixths of their material; whereas I have here at- 
tempted to determine the precise year in all cases in which the 
secretary is known, and then, with the help of archons fixed in 
this way, to approximate in the cases in which the secretary is 
not known. 

The resulting list can be only provisional ; for every secretary 
hereafter found will have a two fold value. It will add another 
archon to the list and will at the same time eliminate a possible 
year for archons already known. Hence a revised list will be 
necessary in a very short time; ‘‘ea enim est disciplinae epi- 
graphicae condicio ut dies diem doceat.’’ 

1Cornell Studies, VII (1898), p. 74. 
Ibid., p. 46 ff. 

SIbid., p. 72. 



























































ae 















Preface. ν 


In connection with each archon name, from Lysias on, I have 
given in the foot-notes a reference to all the passages I could find 
in which the name occurs. My indebtedness to my predecessors 
is acknowledged in the frequency with which I have cited their 
works. Of the careful treatise by Schtschoukareff, I could use 
only the proper names, and the parts which were not in Russian, 
7, e., the references. Reviews of his book have, however, been 
consulted. Koehler and Homolle deserve to be especially men- 
tioned, the former for his masterly treatment of the Attic inscrip- 
tions of this period, the latter for his careful articles on the 
Delian contributions to Athenian chronology, 

Professor B. I. Wheeler’s unceasing interest and assistance have 
done much to make this study what it is. Professor G. P. Bristol 
and Dr. F. O. Bates have read the proofs and given me many 
valuable suggestions. ΤῸ all three I here express my heartiest 
thanks. 


W. 5. F. 
ItHaca, N, Y., April 24th, 1899. 











---.-.- ... . 


Ἴ 
H 
i 


THE ATHENIAN ARCHONS OF THE THIRD AND 
SECOND CENTURIES BEFORE CHRIST. 


§ 1. Anaxikrates, Koroibos, Euxenippos, Pherekles, Leo- 
Stratos, Nikokles, Klearchos, Hegemachos, Euktemon, 
Mnesidemos, Antiphates, (’Avapxyia), Nikias, Nikostratos, 
Olympiodoros, and Philippos. 307/6-293/2 B.C. 


Dionysius of Halicarnassus! assigns to these archons the posi- 
tions they occupy in this list and with him Diodorus Siculus’ and 
the Parian Chronicle,’ as far as they go, agree. The only prob- 
lem in connection with them is to decide whether or no there is 
one lacking between Euktemou and Philippos. The presump- 
tion that there is such a lacuna rests upon the following statement 
of Dionysius: ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἀναγκαία πρὸς ταῦτα ἡ τῶν χρόνων διάγνωσις, τοὺς 
᾿Αθήνῃσιν ἄρξαντας ἀφ᾽ οὗ Δείναρχον ὑπεθέμεθα γεγονέναι χρόνου, μέχρι 
τῆς δοθείσης αὐτῷ, μετὰ τὴν φυγὴν, καθόδου, γενομένους ἑβδομήκοντα, προ- 
θήσομεν, whereas in the list which follows, as preserved in the 
MSS., only sixty-eight names are found. There is ample evi- 
dence that one, Hegesias (324/3 B.C.), was lost in the tradition 
of the MSS. and critics have thought that the second had in the 
same way dropped out of its position immediately before Oly mpi- 
odoros or Philippos.°* 

If there is really a vacancy all will now admit that it must oc- 
cur between Euktemon and Philippos ; for this is the only group 
of archons whose sequence is not established by corroborative tes- 


'De Dinarcho, IX. ΧΧ, 45ff. %Mitth. XXII (1897), p. 183ff. ‘41. ς΄. 

"Τα evidence of C.I.G. 6084 can in no way help to a decision in this mat. 
ter. If it is spurious, as Wilamowitz and Droysen suppose, it is of course 
valueless. If it is genuine, as Franz, Mommsen, Kaibel, and Schtschouka- 
reff think, it can seemingly be made to ascribe Philippos to 293/2 B.C. as 
easily as to any other year; cf. Berl. Phil. Woch, XI (1891), p. 147; Mitth. 
XXII (1897), p. 200f. Schubert’s view (Hermes, X (1876), p. 447ff.) that 
Diokles was archon in 301/o B.C. and that this is the missing name in Dio- 
nysius’ list needs now only to be stated to be rejected ; see the three consec- 
utive inscriptions published as C.I.A. IV 2, 611b, 











2 The Athenian Archons. 


timony. In close connection has to be considered the fact that in 
C.I.A. IT, 299 and in IV 2, 299c, Nikias, one of the group in 
question, is called archon ὕστερος, If Nikias was a ‘suffectus’, 
was Antiphates, who immediately precedes him in the list, his 
predecessor in office for tiie sane year? If he was, two names are 
wanting ; if he was not, why is the archon suffectus and not the 
regularly appointed magistrate mentioned by Dionysius ? 

A very plausible explanation of the difficulty raised by the 
absence of a name in Dionysius’ list is that suggested by 
Wilamowitz,! further worked out by Schtschoukareff,? and 
accepted by Schoeffer.’ According to this the error was made 
by Dionysius himself. In De Dinarcho II we are told that after 
the death of Demosthenes Deinarchos spent fifteen years in Athens 
writing speeches, and fifteen years at Chalcis in exile. Anaxi- 
krates was the last archon in the period of his forensic activity, 
and also the first archon in that of his exile. By taking Archip- 
pos (321/0 B.C.) as our first archon, and by counting Anaxi- 
krates (307/6 B.C.) twice, as Dionysius does, we can get an ap- 
parent total of thirty years between the death of Demosthenes and 
the archonship of Philippos in 293/2 B.C. By adding this thirty 
to the forty which fall between the birth of Deinarchos (361/o 
B.C.) and Archippos, Dionysius made his total of seventy. Such 
a blunder could occur very easily because of the fact that the 
Greeks in calculating the number of years in a given period in- 
cluded both extremes. 

In regard to the second difficulty it is now certain that be- 
tween Euktemon and Nikostratos only three years intervene. For 
each of these three years moreover there is an archon in Dionysi- 
us’ list and there is no reason for supposing that there ever were 
more than three; since the epithet ὕστερος," though it may be dif- 
ferently explained, does not mean that Nikias was the second per- 
son to hold the archonship in that year. He either had no prede- 
cessor at all, as seems to me demonstrable, or was re-appointed at 








‘Phil. Unter. IV (1881), p. 240f. ?Ath. Archons of the 3d Cent. B.C, 
(1889), p. 31ff. *Berl. Phil. Woch. XI (1891), p. 147ff. 

*Cornell Studies, VII (1898), p. 50; cf. A.J. P. XIX (1898), p. 314. 
5Phil. XXXVIII (1879), p. 445f.; Phil. Unter. IV (1881), Ὁ. 237ff. 


al TALENTS RTO I PM eke renee etter cin Veet bE 


Ne 








the fact that in 
f the group in 
ἃ ‘suffectus ’, 
1 the list, his 
two names are 
us aud not the 
sius ? 

raised by the 
suggested by 
ukareff,? and 
‘Or was made 
‘old that after 
ars in Athens 
ile. Anaxi- 
nsic activity, 
cing Archip- 
ting Anaxi- 

| get an ap- 
osthenes and 
8. this thirty 
rchos (361/o 
enty. Such 
ct that the 
ἢ period in- 


n that be- 
‘vene.* For 
ἢ Dionysi- 
-ever were 
nay be dif- 
second per- 
1 no prede- 
pointed at 


Cent, B.C. 





8), Ρ. 314. 
7ff. 





307/6-293/2 Before Christ. 3 


the end of the six months’ term to which Lachares is supposed in 
296/5 B.C. to have limited the tenure of office. There is no clearer 
evidence needed that Nikias was the recognized eponymos for his 
year than the fact that, when in 282/1 B.C. another Nikias be- 
came archon, the deme-name of this second individual was offici- 
ally added to his surname. 

Between Antiphates and Nikias I have indicated a period of 
ἀναρχία. Its duration coincides with that of the tyranny of La- 
chares, which seems to me to be correctly placed before the ‘later 
archonship’ of Nikias. ‘That Lachares was a genuine tyrant who 
overthrew the magistracies and legislative bodies and was not acon- 
stitutional reformer can now, I think, be proved conclusively. 
The tyranny began in the winter of 297/6 B.C. and continued un- 
til the month of Elaphebolion!' in the year 296/5 B.C. Itincluded 
the last half of the archonship of Antiphates and the first eight 
months of Nikias’ year. This view is based upon the following 
construction of the pertinent material : 

In the winter of 297/6 B.C. Lachares, the dominant politician 
of Athens, at the instigation’ of Kassandros, King of Macedon, at- 
tempted to make himself tyrant of the state. While the internal 
strife which followed was still raging, Demetrios Poliorketes, who 
had shortly before destroyed the city of Samaria,’ heard of it,* and 
thinking, because Kassandros was now dead,° the time all the 
more opportune for regaining his hold on Athens he crossed the 
Aegean with iis fleet in the spring of 296 B.C.* However, having 


‘Unger, Phil. XXXVIII (1879), p. 446; Droysen, Gesch. d. Hell. 112, 2, 
P- 394. 

? Paus. I, 25, 7; cf. Pohlinann, Miiller Handb, III, p. 445. 

5 Euseb. ed. Schoene II, p. 118; cf. Droysen, Gesch, II?, 2, Ὁ. 243, n. 2. 

*Plut. Demet. XXXII. 4 ff. 

δ Nineteen years from the accession of Kassandros, in the spring of 316-5 
B.C., (Diod. XIX, 50, 51) take us to the spring of 297-6 B.C. It is unlikely 
that the chronographers who give us months in other cases here used a 
round number, 

SIf the ‘four-years war’ occurred in the years 306-302 B.C., as Ladek 
(Wien. Stud, XIII (1891), p. 111 ff.) has made probable, there is no longer 
any reason to fix with Droysen (Gesch. II’, 2, p. 247) Demetrios’ voyage in 
298 B.C. ; cf. also Wachsmuth, Die Stadt Athen, I, p. 615, n. 2; Schubert, 
Hermes, X (1876), p. τα ff. ; Wilhelm, Gott. gel. Anz. 1898, p. 222; Unger, 
Phil, XXXVIII (1879), p. 477 ff. and esp. p. 479. 





4 The Athenian Archons. : 


lost most of his ships in a storm off the coast of Attica, he was un- 
able to effect anything against the city for the moment. He 
therefore proceeded into the Peloponnese to which his possession 
of Megara and Corinth gave him ready access, and while his offi- 
cers were getting together a new fleet, passed the summer in vari- 
ous military enterprises before Messene and elsewhere. It was 
probably in the same fall that accompanied by the ships already 
collected he made his second attack on Attica. His fleet seized 
Aegina and Salamis! and cut off all approach to Athens by sea, 
while his land force, using as its bases the two captured villages 
Eleusis and Rhamnus, did the same by land. 
Lachares, now firmly established as tyrant, made a long and vig- 
orous defense, but was hampered by the machinations of a party 
"ἢ within the city? which preferred a Macedonian king to an Athe- 
nian tyrant. A reign of terror ensued, and public sentiment, 
shocked by such acts as the application of the gold from Athena’s 
Ἢ statue’ to what were regarded as party purposes, was before spring 





came already in favor of Demetrios. The closeness of the block- 
ade* made the entrance of provisions impossible, and asa result 
extreme need prevailed in the city. Accordingly when the hope 
of relief, which Ptolemy’s fleet? brought with it, had to be aban- 
doned on the appearance of the rest of Demetrios’ ships from Cy- 
prus and the Peloponnese, Lachares, disguising himself in coun- 
tryman’s clothing, made his escape from the city. Thereupon 
the Athenians threw open their gates to ‘the besieger’, and sent 
an embassy® to arrange terms with him. ‘The entrance of Deme- 
trios marked the restoration of the democracy ; for amidst the 
plaudits of the assembled citizens their ‘deliverer’ bade them 
revert to the magistracies' so dear to them. ‘This was done in the 


1 Polyaen. IV, 7, 5. 
| 2Tbid. | 
: 3 Paus. I, 25, 7; Athen. IX, 70; Plut. Is. et Osir. 71. 
See Plut. Demet. XX XIII and XXXIV, for a sketch of the siege. | 
: 5As it was in the year 295 B.C. (Velleius Paterculus, I, 14, 6, and 
- i Mommsen, C.I.L. I, p. 517) that Pyrrhos came from Egypt and became 
King of Epirus, it may very well have been, as Droysen supposes, that he 
made the voyage with this fleet. 
® Cf, C.I.A. II, 300. 
i 7 Plutarch says: Karéornoev ἀρχάς, at μάλιστα τῷ δήμῳ προσφιλεῖς ἦσαν. 











307/6-293|2 Before Christ. ΝΣ 


latter part of 296/5 B.C.,' and the archon appointed for the remain- 
der of the year was Nikias ὕστερος. When in 319/8 B.C. the oli- 
garchy was overthrown, it is generally agreed that, at the 
ἀρχαιρεσία which then was held, the archon Apollodoros was re- 
elected. Had the same been true of Nikias, we should have ex- 
pected Nikias δεύτερος just as we find Apollodoros δεύτερος." 

The chronological requirements of our authorities seem to 
me to be best met, if we ascribe the death of Kassandros to 
the spring of 297/6 B.C.,° give to Philippos his oldest son 
a reign of twelve months, fix the murder of Alexandros, the 
flight of Antipatros, and the accession of Demetrios two years 
and six months latert in the latter part of 294/3 B.C.° and 
set down the final expulsion of Demetrios from Macedon to the 
end of 288/7 B.C. According to these calculations, there fall 
about two years between the capture of Athens and the occupa- 
tion of the throne of Macedon by Demetrios—a time none too long 
for his stay in Athens, his two battles with the Spartan King,’ his 
siege of Argos,* his advance into Macedon, his subsequent retreat 
to Larissa, and his final entrance into the Macedonian capital. It 
is true that Plutarch represents this interval as somewhat shorter ;° 
but surely it may be allowed to him to illustrate his thesis that 
Demetrios’ Tvche took delight in sudden reversals by grouping 
his success at Athens and Sparta, his losses in Asia Minor and 
Cyprus, and his subsequent advancement to the throne of Mace- 


1C.1.A. IT, 299; IV 2, 2996; cf. Unger, Phil. XX XVIII (1879), p. 446. 

7C.1.A. ILAdd. 299b; IV 2, 299 ¢; cf. Pauly-Wissowa, s. v. Apollodoros. 

3Clinton, F. H. II, App. 4, p. 291; Dittenberger, Hermes, II (1867), 
p. 293. 

4 Euseb. I, p. 232, 241; there is another tradition which gives to Philippos 
four months only ; see Euseb. I, p. 245 and 241. 

5 Huseb. I, p. 232 and 234. 

8 After a reign of 7 years according to Plut. Demet. XLIV, 6 years and 6 
months according to Euseb. I, p. 241 and 245, 6 years according to Euseb. 
I, p. 233 and 241. 

7Plut. Demet. XXXV. 

® Athen. X, 415 4; cf. Niese, Gesch. ἃ. griech, τι. mak. Staaten, I, p. 363. 

®In Plutarch’s life of Pyrrhos, ch. 5 ff, no difficulty is experienced if we 
assume that two years intervene between Pyrrhos’ accession to the throne of 
Epirus and the death of Alexandros. 





᾿ 

Ἢ 
ἢ 
' 
Ϊ 

' 
' 
᾿ 








6 The Athenian Archons. 


donia.! I therefore cannot agree with Wilamowitz’ in making the 
beginning of Lachares’ tyranny fall six months before the extra- 
ordinary election of archon and prytanies in what, according to 
his hypothesis, is the middle of 296/5 B.C. Lachares did not 
double the number of office holders for each year: he dispensed 
with magistrates altogether. 


§ 2, Lysias’ and Kimon.* 292/1-291/0 B.C. 

‘The reasons for assigning Lysias and Kimon to 292/1 and 291/0 
B.C. are cogent. From C.I.A. IV 2, 614 b we learn that in the 
archonships of Lysias, Kimon, and [Diokles} the Athenians main- 
tained garrisons of citizens and mercenaries at Kleusis, Phyle, 
and Panakton to protect their territory against enemies,° who 


1plutarch is notorious for his neglect of chronology; Unger (Phil. 
XXXVIII (1879), p. 473) refers to his “" fliichtige gegen die chronologie 
gleichgiiltige weise’’ ; Holm (ET. IV, p. 201) says that “" Plutarch pays no 
heed to chronology’; οἵ, Thirlwall’s pertinent remark in his Hist. of 
Greece, VIII, p. 18, n. 1. 

2 Phil. Unter. IV (1881), p. 199 ff. and p. 237 ff. ; Wilamowitz's view is 
based upon the supposition that Lachares was merely a constitutional re- 
former (cf. Holm, ET. IV, p. 51). It can only be held if the evidence 
of Pausanias is rejected (Phil. Unter. IV, p. 240). It makes the unwar- 
ranted assumption, against which the chronology of the year 319-8 B.C. 
protests, that Gamelion not Elaphebolion divided the year 296-5 B.C. into 
two parts, and finds its only confirmation in a forced interpretation of C.I.A. 
II, 331, 1. 21 ff. ; see Hauvette-Besnault, Les Stratéges Athéniens (1885), p. 
165 ff.=Unger, Phil. Suppl. V (1889), p. 685 ff. Unger’s hypothesis (Phil. 
XXXVIII (1879), p. 455 ff.), that Plutarch confuses two distinct conquests 
of Athens by Demetrios which he thinks took place, one in 295 B.C., and 
the other in 294 B.C., is unproven and unnecessary. 

3C.LA. IV 2, 614 Ὁ, 1. 57. 

4C.LA. I, 331, lL. 31; 1Ν 2, 614b, 1. 60; the name Kimon appears also as 
a restoration in C.I.A. II, 330, but there it is certainly wrong; see below, 
% 26. 

5 Demetrios’ war with the Aetolians came to an end in 289-8 B.C. probably, 
(see Pohlmann, Miiller Handb. III, p. 445). Because of it Demetrios 
celebrated the Pythian games of 290-89 B.C. in Athens (Plut. Demet. XL), 
and to it the ithyphallos embodied in Athenaeus (VI, 253) and quoted by 
Wilamowitz (Phil. Unter. IV (1881), p. 241 ff.) undoubtedly has reference, 
Athens had probably to defend her own territory while Demetrios was en- 
gaged with his enterprises at Corcyra and Leucas; see also C.I.A. I, 331, 1. 
31 ff. 

ὁ Cf, Koehler’s comment on C.I.A. IV 2, 514 Ὁ. 


Ψ 


aE 








-Ξ πα EE ποι έν &— 


Ψ 


| 





292/1-290/89 Before Christ. 7 


were at the same time hostile to the city’s friend and ally Deme- 
trios, King of Macedon. ‘The two archon-names cannot fall 
before 292/1 B.C. : there is at the utmost place for but one and 
that only if Kimon does not succeed Lysias directly.’ The friend- 
ship between Athens and Demetrios was at an end in 287/6 B.C., 
and in that year, Phila, Demetrios’ queen, who at the time of this 
inscription is alive, was dead.? The years 290/89, 2809/8, and 
288/7 B.C. have their arclons definitely fixed by the official order 
of the tribes of the secretaries. 292/1 and 291/o B.C. are therefore 
the only years left for Lysias and Kimon. 

§ 3. Diokles.’ 290/89 B.C. 

The deme of the secretary‘ fixes the archon Diokles in 290/89 
B.C., but even had this been wanting, the following reasons might 
have been urged’ for placing him in this year: i. In the pseudo- 
Plutarch’ it is stated that Demochares, after having returned from 
exile in Diokles’ archonship, went on an embassy to Antipatros 
and got from him twenty talents.’ It is further stated by Euse- 
bius® that Antipatros was put to death by Lysimachos of Thrace, 
and by Justin’ that this murder took place at the very time in 





1The only other possibility is that Philippos came between Lysias and 
Kimon, 

7C.1.A. ΙΝ 2, 614 Ὁ, 1. τα; Plut. Demet, XLV. 

3C.1.A. II, 309; IV 2, 309 b,c; [Plut.] X Orat. Vitae, p. 851 E. 

4 Cornell Studies, VII (1898), p. 50. 

5 Unger (Phil. XX XVIII (1879), p. 477 ff. and Suppl. V (1889), p. 693), 
Wilamowitz, (Phil. Unter. IV (1881), p, 241 ff.), Ladek (Wiener Studien, 
XIII (1891), p. 116 ff.), and Spangenberg (De Ath. institutis, etc., p. 30) put 
Diokles in 290-89 B.C. Dittenberger (Hermes, II (1867), p. 305), Koehler 
(C.LA. II, 309; IV 2, 309 Ὁ), Schoeffer (Pauly-Wissowa, IT, p. 589), Droysen 
(Gesch. II’, 2, p. 300, n. 2), Schmidt (Handb. d. Chron. p. 604), Dumont 
(Essai, p. 118 and Fastes Epony. p. 55), and Meier? (Comment. Epig. p. 
83) put him in 287-6 B.C. Schtschoukareff (Ath. Archons, p. 87 ff.), and 
Kirchner? (Indices to C.I.A. IV 2, p. 326) put him in 288-7 B.C. and 
Schubert (Hermes, X (1876), p. 447 ff.) in 301-0 B.C. 

6X Orat. Vitae, p. 851 E. 

7 Thirlwall, VIII, p. 11, n. 1; Droysen, II’, 2, p. 247,n.3; Clinton F. H. IT, 
p. 465, n. t; Ladlek, Wiener Studien, XIII, p. 120 f., and esp, Unger, Phil. 
XXXVIII, p. 485 fi. 

51, p. 232. 

®XVI, 2, 2. 





8 The Athentan Archons. 


which Pyrrhos was driving Demetrios from Macedonia. Now the 
latest date for the expulsion of Demetrios is the beginning of 287/6 
B.C.' It is therefore impossible for Diokles to have been archon 
in 287/6 B.C. orin any subsequent year. On the other hand there 
is no place for an archon before 290/89 B.C. 2. From C.I.A. II, 
309° we learn that in Diokles' archonship certain Athenians or 
friends of Athens at Delphi were harboured and saved from death 
by an individual named Aischron. In close connection the πυλά- 
yopu are mentioned. ‘These deputies were sent by different states 
to Delphi to attend the Amphictyonic Council only in the years 
of the Pythian games. 290/89 B.C. was, therefore, the regular year 
for the πυλάγοροι to convene at Delphi, and the fact that Demetrios 
had the Pythian games of 290/89 B.C. celebrated at Athens would 
not have affected the place of the Amphictyonic meeting. The 
fact that Athens was in this year at war with Delphi,* and that 
strong feeling must have been aroused by the disregard of prerog- 
atives shown in the celebration of the Pythia at Athens, is on the 
other hand precisely what is needed to explain the violence offered 
to Athenian sympathizers on the occasion of the Amphictyonic 
gathering. 

It is no objection that in 290/89 B.C. Demetrios would have pre- 
vented Demochares’ return ; for in 293/2 B.C. he is known to have 
granted just such a favor to a cousiderable body of political oppo- 
nents,‘ Nor has the contention of Koehler,> that C.I.A. IV 2, 
309 b makes 290/89 B.C. too early for Diokles, longer any weight 
when we deny that the ἄφρακτοι there mentioned are the ships of 
war which in!287 B.C.° attacked Demetrios’ possessions in Greece. 





‘Unger, l.c. p. 472 ff. 

ΓΙΑ, II, 310 has an archon —ros, The secretary was apparently 
—epo[...... p]ac—. The only archon between 307-6 and 278-7 B.C. 
whose name ends in —ros is Olympiodoros (294-3 B.C.). 

$Plut. Demet. XL; cf. above p. 6. 

* Dion. Hal. De Dinarcho, p. 651 (Reiske). 

> Note to C.I.A. IV 2, 309 Ὁ. 

ὁ Plut. Demet. XLIV. 





== 


6 


— 


j 
Ϊ 
Ϊ 





f 


6 


Ϊ 
Ϊ 





289/8-287/6 Before Christ. 9 


ἃ. 4. Diotimos,' Isaios,’ and Euthios.’ 289/8-287/6 B.C. 

Those who assign Diokles to 287/6 B.C. give to Diotimos, Isa- 
ios, and Euthios the three years which follow. Unger, Ladek, 
Wilamowitz, and Schtschoukareff, who place Diokles a year or 
more earlier, give 287/6, 286/5, and 285/4 B.C. tothis group. The 
demes of the secretaries demand for it 289/8, 288/7, and 287/6 B.C.; 
for the three names necessarily follow one another in the order 
given,‘ and Lysimachos who was murdered in 28t/o B.C. was still 
alive when Euthios was archon, and Spartokos IV of Bosporos, 
who died in 284/3 B.C.,° was still on the throne in Diotimos year ; 
so that the group must belong to the secretary period 293/2-282/1 
B.C., and this being the case, the years mentioned are alone pos- 
sible for it. It is obvious that the liberation and recovery of the 
city referred to in the decrees of Diotimos’ and Euthios’ years can 
in no way be identified with the expulsion of the Macedonian gar- 
rison from the Museion hill in the year 287/6 B.C. The correct 
interpretation of these references is suggested by C.I.A. II, 300. 
Here phrases identical with those used in the decrees of Diotimos’ 
and Huthios’ years occur. [ give a collection of them for sake of 
comparison : 

C.LA. II, 300 (295/4 B.C. February). 

[ἀπο]φαίνουσιν δ᾽ αὐτὸν καὶ [οἱ πρέσβεις of] πεμφθέντες ὑπὲρ τῆς 
εἰρήνης πρὸς τὸ]ν βασιλέα Δημήτριον σ[υναγωνίσασθα], τῷ δήμῳ εἰς τὸ 
συντ[ ἐελεσθῆναι τήν] τε φιλίαν τὴν πρὸς τὸν [βασιλέα ΔημήτρἼιον καὶ ὅπως 
ἂν ὁ δῆμος ἀπαλλαγείη το]ῦ πολέμου τὴν ταχίστ[ην καὶ κομισάμεἠ]νος τὸ 


ἄστυ ὃ δημοκρατ[ αν ἔχοι ἀπολαβ]ών. 


'C.LA. II, 311, 312, 313, Add. 313, 567 ; Usener, Epicurea, p. 133, 1. 15 ff. 

*7C.LA. II, 314, 1. 39, 567, Add. Nova, 567 b; Usener, Epicurea, p. 133, 
1. 20 ff., Ὁ. 134, Lt. The first cited Epicurean fragment runs : εἶθ᾽ [ὑἼστερον 
[τοὺς éxOio]rous κατα[λ]7ύει[ν] Maxe[Sévas], ws τ[ό]τε ἐπ᾽ [᾿Ισα]ίου ypd[pe]-. 
In 288-7 B. C. the subject of revolt from Macedon was evidently being can- 
vassed. Even Epicurus was interested. 

5C.LA. II, 314, Add. 314 b; IV 2, 314, 314 ς. 

*See C.I.A. II, 567 and 314. 

5 Diod. XX, roo. 

8 The word used, ἄστυ not πόλις, is noteworthy ; cf. C.I.A. II, 385, 1. 11, 


379, 1. 15. 





10 The Athentan Archons. 


C.I.A. IT, 311 (289/8 B.C. January). 

[ἔτι δὲ ΣπάρτἼ]οκος ἀφικομένης πρεσβείας [παρ᾿ ’ Αθηναίων dx jovoas ὅτι 
ὁ δῆμος κεκόμιστ[αι τὸ ἄστυ συνήσἼθη τοῖς εὐτυχήμασζι] τοῦ δή[μου Kal δέ- ] 
δωκεν σίτ]ου δωρεὰν μυρίους καὶ πε[ντακισχιλίους με]δίμνους. 

C.I.A. ΠῚ, 312 (289/8 B.C. June). ᾿ 

ἐ[πει]δὴ ὁ Παιόνων β[ασ]ιλεὺς [Α 7ὐδω[λέω]ν ἔκ τε τῶν ἔμ[π]ροσθε | 
χρόνων ε[ὕν]ους ἐστὶν τῷ δήμῳ τῶ[ι7 ᾿Αθηνα[ί Ἰων χρείας παρεχόμενο[ς] 
καὶ συ[ν]εργῶν εἰς τὴν ἐλευθερ[ί7ὰν τῇ [π]όλει καὶ κομισαμένου { τ] οῦ 
δήμ[ο]υ τὸ ἄστυ πυθόμενος συ[ν]ήσθη τ[ο]ῖς γεγενημένοις εὐτυχήμασι 
νομίζων εἶναι κοινὴν καὶ αὐτ[ὦ]. τὴν τῆς πόλεως σωτηρίαν, παρ[ ἐ Ἰχετα[} 
δὲ χρείας καὶ ἰδίᾳ τοῖ[ς] τε διατρίβουσιν ᾿Αθηναίων πα[ρ]᾽ ἑαυτὸν καὶ τοῖς 
ἀφικνουμένο[ι]ς εἰς τὴν χώραν, δέδωκεν δὲ καὶ [σ]ί[τἼ]ου δωρεὰν τῷ δήμῳ 
μεδίμν[ου]ς ἑπτακισχιλίους καὶ πεντα[κ]οσίους Μακεδονίας τοῖς ἰδίοι[ς] 
ἀναλώμασιν καταστήσας εἰς [το]ὺς λιμένας τοὺς τῆς πόλεως, ἐπ[α Ἰνγέλλεται 
δὲ καὶ εἰς τὸ λοιπὸ[ν] παρέξεσθαι χρείας συνεργῶν [elis τε τὴν τοῦ Πειραιέως 
κομι[ δὴ |v καὶ τὴν τῆς πόλεως ἐλευθερί[α]ν ἀγαθεῖ τύχει δεδόχθαι κτλ. 

C.I.A. II, 314 (287/6 B.C. August-September). 


Ν , A , AY 9 ’ , “ ‘\ , 
καὶ κομισαμένου τοῦ δήμου τὴν ἐλευθερίαν διατετέλεκε λέγων καὶ πράττων 





τὰ συμφέροντα τεῖ τῆς πόλεως σωτηρίᾳ καὶ παρακαλῶν τὸν βασιλέα βοηθεῖν 
καὶ χρήμασιν καὶ σίτῳ ὅπως ἂν διαμένει ὃ δῆμος ἐλεύθερος ὧν καὶ τὸν 
Πειραιᾶ κομίσηται καὶ τὰ φρούρια τὴν ταχίστην, καὶ ὑπὲρ τούτων π[ά]ντων 
πολλάκις μεμαρτύρηκεν αὐτῷ 6 βασιλεὺς πρὸς τοὺς π[ρ]εσβεύοντας 
᾿Αθηναίων πρὸς ἑαυτόν, καὶ χειροτον[ ηθεὶ]ς ἀγωνοθέτης ἐπὶ ᾿Ισαίου ἄρχοντος 
ὑπήκουσείν τῷ δ]ήμῳ ἐθελοντὴς ἐκκτῶν ἰδίων τάς τε πατρίους θυσία ]ς 
ἔθυσεν τοῖς θεοῖς ὑπὲρ τοῦ δήμου καὶ τὴ[ν........ |v ἔδωκεν πᾶσιν ᾿Αθηναίοις 
πάντας τοὺς |.....5, καὶ ἐπί |Oerov ἀγῶνα κατεσκεύασεν tel Δήμ[ητρι καὶ τῇ 
Κόρη]ι [πρ]ῶτος ὑπόμνημα τῆς τοῦ δήμου [ἐλευθερίας] κτλ, 

It seems to me very clear that the phrases κομισάμενος τὸ ἄστυ, 
ὅτι ὁ δῆμος κεκόμισται TO ἄστυ, Kal κομισαμένου τοῦ δήμου τὸ ἄστυ, Kal 
κομισαμένου τοῦ δήμου τὴν ἐλευθερίαν, refer to one and the same inci- 
dent. If that is so, the first occurrence of the phrase in 295/4 
B.C. precludes any possibility of its denoting that recovery of the 
city which followed Demetrios’ expulsion from Macedon. For in 
295/4 B.C., as the rest of C.I.A. 11, 300 in itself shows, it was in 
connection with the deliverance of the city from the tyranny of , 
Lachares that the words were used, and to this same deliverance 





——EE ee — = " 
nn τος RESP ETS BENE IE NPN PHT NR ERR I 


= 





289/8-287/6 Before Christ. II 


the decrees of Diotimos’ and Euthios’ archonships also undoubt- 
edly refer. It was in memory of this deliverance too that in 288/7 
B.C. Philippides, perhaps reminded by the tributes paid to the 
slayers of Hipparchos,' πρῶτος instituted a new contest in honor of 
Demeter and Kore. The view of Wilamowitz? and Holm’ is that 
Lachares was a ‘‘inuch abused’’ man ‘‘who, when Demetrius 
gained a footing in Attica and occupied Eleusis and Rhamnus. 
made himself master of the city and was decried as atyrant, partly 
no doubt because he enforced strict discipline among the be- 
sieged’’, In this view it is not easy to believe that the citizens of 
Athens, whose sturdy independence of character Holm rightly ad- 
mires, when their fear of Demetrios was already much lessened, 
still continued to look upon the expulsion of Lachares as a resto- 
ration of their democratic liberties, a piece of good fortune for 
which foreign kings might congratulate them, and a fit subject for 
an opponent of Demetrios to commemorate with memorial games. 
But on what is the Wilamowitz-Holm view based? Certainly 
not on the literary tradition. As Wilamowitz himself says ‘die 
tiberlieferung iiber diesen mann ist sich dariiber einig, dass er 
ein scheusslicher tyrann war.’’* Polyaenus,® Athenaeus,® and 
Plutarch’ have nothing good to say for him, and Pausanias® terms 
him τυράννων ὧν ἴδμεν τά τε ἐς ἀνθρώπους μάλιστα ἀνήμερον καὶ ἐς τὸ θεῖον 
ἀφειδέστατον. The unanimous testimony of the ancient writers has 
been set aside, mainly because it was natural to suppose that the 
Athenians made Lachares the scapegoat to which to divert Deme- 
trios’ anger when he got control of their city after the long siege. 
Thirlwall’ and Droysen,” however, have rightly held to the tra- 
dition. 


'See Diod. XX, 46; C.I.A. II, 300, 1. 39 f. 
? Phil. Unter. IV, p. 199 f. 

3 Hist. of Greece, ET. IV, pp. 51 and 77. 

* Phil. Unter. IV, p. 237. 

5 Strateg. III, 7. 

6 IX, 70. 

TIs, et Osir. 71. 

*T, 25, 7; 29, 16. 

® Hist. of Greece, VIII, p. 11 ἢ. 

 Gesch. ἃ. Hell. II?, 2, p. 251. 























12 The Athenian Archons. 


Since therefore Lachares was such a cruel and detestable tyrant, 
the Athenians, as Thumser says,' ‘must have been glad to fall 
into Demetrios’ hands for athird time’. It was undoubtedly politic 
on their part to acknowledge Demetrios’ claims to be their liberator, 
I think however that we have evidence in the decrees before us of 
such lasting satisfaction on the part of the Athenians at the down- 
fall of Lachares, that nothing short of the absolute destruction of 
all the democratic forms of government pointed to by C.I.A. IT, 
299 could have been his crime, and that only the epithets of Pau- 
sanias can adequately characterize him. 

I am convinced that Dittenberger,? Thumser,’ Wilamowitz,* 
Wachsmuth,° and others are right in holding that C.I.A. II, 314, 
1, 32ff. shows that in the middle of the third month of Euthios’ 
year ὃ Πειραιεὺς καὶ τὰ φρούρια were not yet in the possession of the 
δῆμος. Therefore it was not till after the month of August 287 
B.C. that the Athenians under the command of Olympiodoros 
diove the Macedonian garrison from the Museion, and revolted 
from Demetrios. And indeed an earlier date is hardly possible if 
we pay any regard to Plutarch’s narrative.® 

Had Euthios been archon in 285/4 or 284/3 B.C., there must 
have been Macedonian garrisons in ‘the Peiraieus and the forts’ 
for more than two or three years after the expulsion of Demetrios 
from Macedon. The difficulties of this supposition were so palpa- 
ble that Zink vainly denied the fact, and Koumanoudes placed 
Euthios before 287/6 B.C.’ The most apparent of those difficul- 
ties are: 

1. Pausanias in speaking of the storming of the Museion 
says: ᾿Αθῆναι μὲν οὕτως ἀπὸ Μακεδόνων ἠλευθερώθησαν" It was 





* Hermes, II (1867), p. 285 ff. 

Sop. cit. p. 777. 

* Phil. Unter. IV, p. 257. 

5 Die Stadt Athen, I, p. 620, n. 2. 

® Cf. Unger, Phil. XX XVIII (1879), p. 476. 

7 See Dittenberger, Hermes, II (1867), p. 286 and 294. 

81, 26, 2; of course this expression may mean no more than the ‘ Anti- 
gonus Atheniensibus rursus dedit libertatem ’’ used by Eusebius (II, p. 120( 
in reference to the events of 256 B.C. 


POINT SEATON a oe, 
͵ 


ANDREA SANS OTE NA oe 


289/8-287/6 Before Christ. 13 


indeed a doubtful freedom that was theirs when the Peiraieus, 
Munychia, Salamis, Panakton, Phyle,' Eleusis,’ etc., were held 
by hostile and now aggravated garrisons. 

2. When Pyrrhos followed Demetrios into Greece in 287/6 B.C. 
he forced him to abandon the siege of Athens by backing the sup- 
plications of the philosopher Krates with his victorious army. 
It is inconceivavle that he should have made a triumphal entry 
into the city without having first driven the garrisons of Deme- 
trios from Munychia and the Peiraieus. ΤῸ be sure his advice 
to the Athenians to receive no more kings within their gates 
would have been under these circumstances anything but accept- 
able.* 

3. The fact that not only the Peiraieus but also τὰ φρούρια' were 
not yet inthe hands of the Athenians presents difficulties under the 
current hypothesis. For although both Plutarch and Pausanias are 
unusually explicit in describing how it came about that Munychia, 
the Museion, and Peiraieus were occupied,’ we nave no knowledge 
that Demetrios ever had garrisons i Attica in more than these 
three places. As the Museion was recovered in 287/6 B.C., Mu- 
nychia is alone left to be designated τὰ φρούρια, Nor can we sup- 
pose with Wachsmuth® that Demetrios did occupy Salamis, Pa- 
nakton, and Phyle, although no record of such an occupation is 
extant; for in the years 292/1, 291/0, and 290/89 B.C. we find not 
Macedonian but Athenian garrisons in Panakton, Phyle, and Eleu- 
sis.’ ‘That τὰ φρούρια mean Munychia, Salamis, Sunion, etc., is 
unlikely, and indeed that Demetrios put a garrison in Salamis or 
Sunion, and left the other places unguarded, is as improbable as 
it is unattested. When Antigonos Gonatas, at the termination of 
the Chremonidean War, did garrison Salamis and Sunion, as 
well as the Museion and Munychia, we have explicit testimony 
to the fact." 


1 Wachsmuth, Die Stadt Athen, I, p. 620, π. 1. 

3 Wilamowitz, Phil. Unter. IV, p. 255 f. 

8 Plut. Pyrrhos, XII; cf. Unger, Phil. XXXVIII (1879), p. 476. 
* See above, p. 10; cf. C.I.A. II, 335, 1. 11; IV 2, 591 Ὁ, 1. Sf. 

5 Plut. Demet. XXXIV; Paus. I, 25, 7. 

® Die Stadt Athen, I, Ὁ. 620, n. 1. 

TC.LA. IV 2, 614 Ὁ. 

5 Paus. II, 8, 6; cf. III, 6,6; (1.4. 1V 2, 591 Ὁ. 











14 The Athenian Archons, 


4. In or shortly before the month of June of the year 286 
or 285 B.C, (according to the current chronology) the gift of 
corn from Audoleon, King of the Paeonians, was landed ἐπ the 
harbours of the state.’ Of course it may be urged that the peace 
made by Pyrrhos with Demetrios’ stipulated for the Athenians 
free use of the Peiraieus and Munychia for commercial purposes ; 
but we have no evidence that the Athenians were parties to this 
peace at all, and the least likely thing for a hostile garrison in the 
Peiraieus to do, would be to admit provisions into the revolted 
city. Ifthe peace is held to have gained for Athens this privil- 
ege, how did the gift of corn from Spartokos,*® which according to 
the calculations of Unger’ reached Athens long before the peace 
was made, get access to the city and that without any apparent 
difficulty ? Or if this is thought to be dated by Unger, Wilamo- 
witz, Ladek, Schtschoukareff, Spangenberg, and others a year too 
early, how came it that a like facility of admittance was found for 
the corn which the unprotected transport ships of Ptolemy® 
brought in the first month of the year 287/6 B.C., according to the 
chronology of Koehler, Schoeffer, Dittenberger, Droysen, and 
others? Before the storming of the Museion on the other hand, 
garrisons in Munychia and the Peiraieus could have had no rea- 
son for preventing the free entrance of provisions. 

The following passage from Plutarch has been cited to prove 
the continuation of Demetrios’ garrisons in Athens after its re- 
volt : ὁ δὲ Δημήτριος ἐν τῇ τοιαύτῃ τύχῃ γεγονὼς (when made prison- 
ers by Seleukos in 285 B.C.) ἐπέστειλε τοῖς περὶ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τοῖς περὶ 
᾿Αθήνας καὶ Κόρινθον ἡγεμόσι καὶ φίλοις μήτε γράμμασιν αὐτοῦ μήτε 
σφραγῖδι πιστεύειν, ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ τεθνηκότος ᾿Αντιγόνῳ τὰς πόλεις καὶ τὰ 
λοιπὰ πράγματα διαφυλάττειν The leaders of the pro-Demetrian 
peorty at Athens may be all that is meant, or the ἡγεμόνες may 





1.1.4. II, 312. 

?Plut. Pyrrhos, XII; in May 286 B.C. according to Wilamowitz (Phil. 
Unter. IV, p. 248). 

86.1.4. II, 311. 

* Phil. XX XVIII (1879), p. 476. 

5C.1A. IV 2, 309 b; in the fall of 286 B.C. Demetrios was still in controt 
of the sea (Plut. Demet. XLVI). 

° Plut. Demet. LI. 





{ 
j 
’ ! 


ἥν 


; 
a 
py 
f 
ΠῚ 
Ne 








289/8-287/6 Before Christ, 15 


have been at Corinth and the φίλοι at Athens, Tas πόλεις could 
not include Athens on any interpretation. 

The situation at Athens after 296/5 B.C. may be summed up as 
follows: All parties rejoiced alike at their deliverance from the 
oppression of Lachares,' and with good reason, for the city was 
promised, and we now know actually obtained, complete auton- 
omy.’ Few however bore patiently the presence of the garrisons 
of Demetrios in Munychia and the Peiraieus. As a result the 
distinguished general Phaidros was sent on an embassy to De- 
metrios’ enemy Ptolemy Lagos,’ and an attack was actually 
planned against the garrison in the Peiraieus, but treachery caused 
it to fail. The disclosure thereby made of the aims of the popu- 
lar leaders probably had something to do with the return in 
293/2 B.C. of Deinarchos and the other aristocrats who had sup- 
ported Demetrios of Phaleron.® It may have been in consequence 
of this attempt also that the Museion was garrisoned by De- 
metrios.” Then came the war with the Aetolians, during which 
the Athenians defended their territory from pillaging expeditions’ 
by means of garrisons at Panakton, Phyle, and Eleusis.* In 290/89 
Demetrios came to Athens, was received with ostentatious joy, 
and celebrated the Pythian games there. In the same year 
Demochares liis inveterate opponent returned from exile. A 
vivid picture of the position and feelings of the Athenians during 
this year and the two which follow is presented to us in the de- 
crees.” Demochares was closely in touch with the kings op- 
posed to Demetrios, and had tue people with him.” He went in 





1 Pausanias (I, 25, 7) uses of this event the phrase Δημήτριος δὲ ὁ ᾿Αντιγόνον 
τυράννων ἐλευθερώσας ᾿Αθηναίους KX, 

*Cf. besides the decrees quoted in n. 9 below, the following passage from 
C.LA. II, 331, 1. 38 f.: καὶ τὴν πόλιν ἐλευθέραν καὶ δημοκρατουμένην αὐτόνομον 
παρέδωκεν καὶ τοὺς νόμους κυρίους τοῖς μεθ᾽ ἑαυτόν. 

560Ι.Α. II, 331, 1. 29. 

‘ Paus. I, 29, 10; Polyaen. V, 17. 

5 Dion. Hal. De Dinarcho, LX=p. 651. 

® Paus. I, 25, 7. 

TC.LA, II, 331, 1. 35 ff. ; IV 2, 614 Ὁ, 1. 66 f. 

8 See above under Lysias. 

®[Plut.] X Orat. Vitae, p. 851 D; C.I.A. II, 311, 312, 314; IV 2, 309b. 


He probably received the office ἐπὶ τῇ διοικήσει and so was able to re- 
trench the state expenses. The reason why he could hold this position and 








16 The Athenian Archons. 


person as ambassador to Lysimachos and Antipatros, and brought 
home 150 talents of silver for the state. On his motion an em- 
bassy went to Ptolemy and got 50 talents. In addition embassies 
were sent to Pyrrhos’ father-in-law, Audoleon King of the Pae- 
onians, and to Spartokos of Bithynia, and returned with gifts of 
provisions and congratulations on their independence—an inde- 
pendence to be sure with which it was not inconsistent for ling 
Audoleon to promise that he καὶ εἰς τὸ λοιπὸν] παρέξεσθαι χρείας 
συνεργῶν [ε]΄ϊς τε τὴν τοῦ Πειραιέως κομι[δὴ}ν καὶ τὴν τῆς πόλεως 
ἐλευθερί[«]ν. Wilamowitz remarks: ‘‘ mtissen doch bedeutendere 
geldinittel und ein ziemlich durchdachter plan vorgelegen haben, 
als im sommer 287 die nachricht von dem sturz des Demetrios 
nach Athen kam und ein sofortiges aufflammen der emporung 
zur folge hatte.’?' Of these we now have plenty of evidence. 
Meanwhile the soldiers in the garrisons either did not attempt, 
or did not suffice to intimidate the people. The disaffection with 
Demetrios, which so signally manifested itself among the Mace- 
donian troops when Pyrrhos invaded their country in 288/7 B.C., 
was also prevalent among the men in garrison at Athens. Indeed 
Strombichos, one of the two captains, was on intimate terms with 
the Athenians, and when the citizens rose in arms under Olym- 
piodoros in 287/6 B.C., he deserted his fellow leader Spintharos and 
aided in the storming of the Museion.? The apathetic attitude of 
the garrisons’ and the absence of Demetrios! explain the apparent 
boldness of the Athenians in carrying on negotiations with 


yet ἀρχὴν οὐδεμίαν ἄρχειν καταλελυκότος τοῦ δήμου is simply that the democracy 
was between 296-5 and 287-6 B.C. completely in control of the government. 

1 phil. Unter. IV, p. 205 ; ef. Unger, Phil. XX XVIII (1879), p. 484 ff. 

ΤΑ, II, 317. 

* Cf. the expression used in C.I.A. IV 2, 371 ¢, 1. 12 (246-4 B.C.) : [κ7αὲ 
μνείαν διατετέ[λ)]εκεν (᾿ Ἀριστόμαχος) πο[ιούμενος πε[ρὶ τῆς ἐ]λευ[θ]ερίας [7 ]od 
δήμου τὴν ἀρίσ[τη]ν ἐμ παντ[ὶ καιρῷ!. The garrisons in the Peiraieus, 
Salamis, Munychia, and Sunion did not succeed, at this time even, in 
stifling the expression of their desire for liberty. Nor did they prevent the 
Athenians from negotiating with Attalos I in 237-6 (C.I.A. II, 384), and 
with Ptolemy III in 234-3 (C.LA. 17, 381), and in 2221 P.C. (Ἐφ. ’Apx. 
1897, p. 42 ff., no. 13), both enemies of the Macedonian King. 

‘It has been thought, on the basis of Plutarch, Demet. XLII, that Deme- 
trios was never in Athens after 290-89 B.C.. 











‘| 
4 








Φ. 
πος, τ ots 8 


286|5 Before Christ. 17 


Ptolemy and Lysimachos. It is noteworthy, however, that in 
none of the decrees of the years 290/89 and 2890/8 B.C. is there the 
slightest reference to Demetrios. It is only in Aug.-Sept. of 
287/6 B.C., after the expulsion of Demetrios from Macedon and 
before he had gathered his forces together again, that the Atheni- 
ans refer to him in terms that might be thought at all uncompli- 
mentary.' At the time at which the Museion was stormed, De- 
metrios was again formidable. He at once moved into Attica to 
support his garrisons in Munychia and the Peiraieus, but the ad- 
vent of Pyrrhos with his powerful army forced him to retreat. It 
was most probably at this time that he withdrew such of his troops 
as remained loyal to him at Athens; for to leave them there, be- 
tween the citizens on the one hand and Pyrrhos on the other, 
would have been only to sacrifice them. We have sufficient 
proof that these places were evacuated. Otherwise the capture of 
Munychia and the Peiraieus, not that of the Museion alone, 
would have been cited in the list of Olyimpiodoros’ achievements. 
The most noteworthy service too, which Strombichos rendered to 
the city—indeed the only one singled out for specific commenda- 
tion—was his assistance in storming the Museion. Had Muny- 
chia and the Peiraieus been taken by force that fact would surely 
have been mentioned in our decrees’ of the year 282/1 B.C. 


$5. Xenophon.’ 286/5 B.C. 
In C.I.A. II, 331, 1. 30ff. we read as follows: χειροτονηθεὶς δὲ 


(Φαῖδρος) ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου ἐπὶ τὰ ὅπλα στρατηγὸς τὸν ἐνιαυτὸν τὸν ἐπὶ 
Κίμωνος ἄρχοντος διετέλεσεν ἀγωνιζόμενος ὑπὲρ τῆς κοινῆς σωτηρίας καὶ 
᾿ὰ a ΄ a , , Ν > , Lal , 

περιστάντων τεῖ πόλει καιρῶν δυσκόλων διεφύλαξεν τὴν εἰρήνην TH χώρᾳ 
ἀποφαινόμενος ἀεὶ τὰ κράτιστα, καὶ τὸν σῖτον ἐκ τῆς χώρας καὶ 

\ ¥ N ” > 2 > a , a 
τοὺς ἄλλους καρποὺς αἴτιος ἐγένετο εἰσκομισθῆναι συμβουλεύσας τῷ 
δήμῳ συντελέσαι (erasure of c. 38 letters) καὶ τὴν πόλιν ἐλευθέραν καὶ 
δημοκρατουμένην αὐτόνομον παρέδωκεν καὶ τοὺς νόμους κυρίους τοῖς μεθ᾽ 
ἑαυτὸν (erasure of c. 51 letters) διετέλεσε καὶ λέγων καὶ πράττων ἀγαθὸν 
ὅ τι ἠδύνατο ὑπὲρ τοῦ δήμου (erasure of c. 71 letters) χειροτονηθεὶς ἐπὶ 


IC.LA. IT, 314. 
2C.LA, II, 317, 318. 
3 C.I.A. II, 331, 1. 45. 











EE TD 


18 The Athenian Archons. 


τὰ ὅπλα πρῶτος ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου στρατηγὸς τὸν ἐνιαυτὸν τὸν ἐπὶ Ἐενοφῶντος 
ἄρχοντος διετέλεσε πάντα πράττων ἀκολούθως τοῖς τε νόμοις καὶ τοῖς τῆς 
βουλῆς καὶ τοῦ δήμου ψηφίσμασιν (erasure of 4 or 5 lines) καὶ ἀγωνο- 
θ(έγτης χειροτονηθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου ἐπὶ Νικίου ἄρχοντος ἐπεμελήθη κτλ. 

The secretary for Xenophon’s archonship is unknown. It is 
evident, however, that Xenophon must fall between Kimon 
(291/0 B.C.) and Nikias (282/1 B.C.). This being the case, only 
286/5 and 284/3 B.C. are possible forhim, After δήμου in the tenth 
line of the above quotation there was some reference to the King of 
Macedon, as the excision of the passage shows. The erasure after 
ἑαυτόν is of like significance.’ Between 291/o and 283/2 B.C. we 
know of only one year, 287/6 B.C., in which events, of sufficient im- 
portance to mark it as the last of an era, and likely to involve the 
Athenians with the Macedonian King, took place. The impor- 
tant point, as Dittenberger has already seen,’ is that Phaidros was 
the first person to be chosen general ἐπὶ τὰ ὅπλα after the year in 
which these events took place. 286/5 B.C. is therefore to be pre- 
ferred for Xenophon. 

§6. Urios.* 285/4 B.C. 

The secretary furnished by C.I.A. IV 2, 345 ς᾽ belongs to the 
tribe Kekropis. ‘The general determination of the date on the 
basis of the lettering and the fact that his year precedes the death 
of Epicurus in 271/o B.C. limit this archon to the two years 285/4 
and 273/2 B.C. That the earlier date is to be preferred is clear 
from the following statement in Philodemos : ἐπὶ δ᾽ ᾿Ισαίου (288/7 
B.C.) καὶ γέγραφεν (Epicurus) ....vev.......... to... [ἐπὶ] δ᾽ Οὐ[ρ]ώον 





1The friendship between Athens and Antigonos Gonatas at the time this 
decree was passed (c. 273 B.C.) led to the insertion of many passages, 
which in 200 B.C. the state, in its anger at the house of Philip, excised. 

2 Sylloge, 162, note 16. 

3C.1.A. IV 2, 345 ¢; Usener, Epicurea, p. 134, note on 1. 2. The restora- 
tion ‘ Euthios ’ is incorrect. 

4 Here we learn that the people of Tenos in 285-4 B.C. renewed their fore- 
time intimacy with the Athenians. 

5 Πραγματεῖαι, Vol. Hercul.? I, 129; cf. Usener, 1. c. Joh. Ἐν. Kirchner 
(Rhein. Mus. {111 (1898), p. 386 f.) on the evidence of Philodemos alone 
assigns Urios to either 284-3 or 283-2 B.C. See also Unger, Phil. XX XVIII 
(1879), p. 465, and Gomperz, Hermes, V (1871), p. 395. 








τ 


28 ς2--28132 Before Christ. 19 


Λεοντεῖ προγράψα[νἾτες, πάλι[ν] δὲ καὶ ᾿Επίκουρος [πρὸς] Μιθρῆν. The 
conjunction of Urios and Isaios is not the only indication of date. 
The mention of the name Mithras is also significant." Asa result 
of a correspondence carried on with this individual it was, says 
D' genes Laertius,’ maliciously asserted of Epicurus that he 
“© Μίθρην αἰσχρῶς κολακεύειν τὸν Λυσιμάχου διοικητὴν, ἐν ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς 
παιᾶνα καὶ ἄνακτα Kadodvta.’’ Obviously had these letters been writ- 
ten after the murder of Lysimachos in 281/0 B.C. there would have 
been no occasion for the accusation that he paid shameless court 
to a king's favourite. 


§ 7. Telokles.* 284/3 B.C. 


The approximate date of this archon is indicated by the fact 
that Νικοκράτης ᾿Αρχεμάχου Φηγαιεύς, who was a senator in Telokles’ 
year, made a motion at an assembly of φυλέται in Isaios’ year 
(288/7 B.C.).* If Gomperz has correctly restored the following 
Philodemos fragment,’ Telokles must be assigned to 284/3 B.C. : 
καὶ τὸ πρὸς Μί [Opav] ἐπὶ Τη[ λο]κλ[ Jovs. A letter from Epicurus to 
Mithras cannot well be dated later than 281/o B.C. and before that 
year 284/3 B.C. is alone unoccupied. In place of Mé[@pav], how- 
ever, Usener writes M[tv].° Mus wasa slave of Epicurus and sur- 
vived his master.’ Accordingly on the basis of the Philodemos’ 
fragment we cannot do more than say that Telokles was archon 
in one of the vacant years before 271/0 B.C. But C.I.A. IV 2, 
318c enables us to define him with greater exactness. Foucart, 
whom Koehler follows,* dates this decree in Telokles’ archonship. 


) 


1Plut. Adv. Colot. 33, 2; non posse suaviter vivi, 15, 15; Diog. Laert. 
II, 102; X, 4 and 28; cf. Huebner, Diog. Laert. IV, p. 507. 

2X, 4. 

S5C.LA. IV 2, 318 c (Wilhelm has made some further, as yet unpublished, 
additions to this inscription) ; Add. 318 c; II, 1158; Philodemos, quoted 
by Gomperz, Z. f. 6. G. XVII (1866), p. 694, and by Usener, Epicurea, 
p. 134. 

*C.1.A. II, 1158 (Koehler’s note), 567. 

5.2. f. ὃ. G. XVII (1866), p. 694. 

6 Epicurea, p. 134. 

7 Diog. Laert. X, 3, 10; Gell. N. A. II, 18; Macrob. Sat. I, 11, 42. 

S8C.1.A. IV 2 Add. 318 c, p. 296. This is the weakest point: it is not 
certain that Telokles should be restored in C.I.A. IV 2, 318 c. 








20 The Athenian Archons. 


Assuming this to be correct, then Telokles must have been archon 
before 280 B.C., ¢.e., before the death of Seleukos Nikator ; for in 
his archonship an Athenian, Komeas by name, went on an em- 
hassy to the king on behalf of the Kleruchs of Lemnos.' But on 
the testimony of Phylarchos,’ Koehler determines that until the 
battle of Korupedion the island of Lemnos was under the thumb 
of Lysimachos, and could therefore have sent an ainbassador to 
Seleukos only in the year 281 B.C.* Telokles, however, cannot 
have been archon in any year between 283/2 and 278/7 B.C., nor 
can C.I.A. ΓΝ 2, 318c¢ have been passed in 281/o B.C. ; for the 


' where- 


secretary in 281/o B.C. had iu lis name twenty-six letters, 
as in C.I.A. IV 2, 318c the name of the secretary occupied only 
twenty-one spaces. Moreover at the time the decree was passed 
the Athenians had control of the island of Lemnos. By them the 
decree of the Kleruchs had to be ratified and, as during the fourth 
century, an Athenian hipparch was stationed there. It was as 
representative of Athenian interests consequently that the hip- 
parch Komeas negotiated with King Seleukos. This certainly 
does not accord with the situation at Lemnos when Seleukos 
intervened in or about 281 B.C. From 281 until 229 B.C. 
Lemnos remained independent of Athens.° Only before Lysi- 
machos got possession of the island can we explain the circum- 
stances under which our decree was passed. Unfortunately we 
do not know when this happened, nor do we know when the 
Athenians recovered Lemnos after they lost it in 317 B.C. Koeh- 
ler, with much probability, concludes that it was in 307/6 B.C.° 
Whether it remained with Athens between 296/5 and 287/6 B.C. 
istnknown. At any rate there is a strong probability that, when 
in 285/4 B.C. the people of Tenos were re-admitted to the right of 


1C.LA. IV 2, 318 ς, frg. ἃ, 1. 22 ff. 

? Athen. VI, 254 f. 

8 Note to C.I.A. IV 2, 318 c. 

*C.LA. IV 2, 331 Ὁ, and below p. 22, 7 9. 

5 Athen. VI, 254 f.; for the history of Lemnos see Koehler, Mitth. I 
(1876), p. 261 ff. 

8 Cf. C.I.A. II, 284, and 268 which Wilhelm (Jahreshefte ἃ. 6. arch. Instit. 
in Wien, I (1898), Beiblatt Sp. 47), joins with C.I.A. IV 2, 264 ας. 


ieee ee ee ee 


loge 


Se Ss ogi DP ae ean ea 


ii 
3 





Sasa arene ee 


ar 


i 
Ὶ 
i 


28 3/2--282/1 Before Christ. 21 


ἰσοτέλεια with Athens,’ Lemnos was already Athenian, Nothing 
therefore stands in the way of our ascribing Telokles to 284/3 
B.C., to which year he must belony if he precedes 280 B.C. 


§ 8. Menekles* and Nikias 'Orpuveis."  283/2-282/1 B.C. 


C.I.A. II, 316, 1. 7 ἢ shows that Menekles immediately pre- 
ceded Nikias ’Orpuvevs, Under the latter of the two were passed 
C.I.A. II, 317 and 318. These contain references to the 
storming of the Museion, and were passed during the lifetime of 
Strombichos, one cf Demetrios’ captains in Athens between 
296/5 and 287/6 B.C. The secretaries for both these archons are 
known and give us as possibilities 283/2, 282/1 B.C. and 2590/8, 
258/7 ΒΟ." Between these the evidence of C.I.A. II, 317 and 
318 can leave us no choice whatever ; for it is utterly inconceiva- 
ble that 29 years elapsed between the rendering of the services by 
Strombichos and the passiug of these decrees commending them. 
Moreover in C.I.A. II, 316, 1. 12 it is stated that the Athenian 
ephebes garrisoned the Museion during Menekles’ year*®, whereas 
we know’ that in 259/8 B.C. the Museion was in the possession 
of the soldiers of Antigonos Gonatas. Further it is asserted by 
Wilamowitz' that the peculiar angular lettering of the decrees of 
these two archonships is shared by C.I.A. II, 320. Hence he 
concludes that C.I.A. II, 320 belongs to cne of these two years. 
This decree, however, is a bestowa: of citizenship on Bithys* a 


courtier of King Lysimachos and hence was passed prior to 281/o 
B.C.” 


'C.LA. IV 2, 345 c; cf. above p. 29, n. 4. 

7C.LA. IT, 315, 316; IV 2, 614 ς. 

SC.LA. II, 316, 317, 318, 331, 1. 53 ἢν, 614, 1. 6, 1291; IV 2, 318 Ὁ. 

* 271-0 and 270-69 B.C. are excluded because 271-0 B.C. is already occu- 
pied by Pytharatos ; see below p. 44. 247-6 and 246-5 B. C. are altogether 
out of the question. 

5 For another reference (?) to the war which took place in this year see C. 
IA. II, 341, 1. 15. A garrison of Athenians was also stationed at Eleusis ; see 
C.I.A. IV 2, 614¢. Antigonos Gonatas was probably concerned in it ; see 
C.I.A. II, 331, 1. 47 ff. 

5 Paus. II, 8, 6; III, 6, 6; Euseb. II, p. 120; ef. Gilbert, Gk. Const. 
Antiq. ET. p. 161 and n. 4; Holm, ET. IV, p. 199 and p. 207 ff. 

7Phil. Unter. IV, p. 246; cf. Ditt. Syll. 144, note 1. 

5 Athen. VI, 49; XIV, 3. 

9 See also below καὶ 16. 





22 The Athentan Archons. 


80. Aristonymos.' 28:1/o B.C. 


An epistle of Epicurus is dated in Aristonymos’ archonship. 
Since Epicurus died in 271/o B.C., and the secretary for Aristony- 
mos’ year belongs to the tribe Antigonis, Aristonymos must have 
been archon in 281/o B.C. This is the name therefore that must 
be restored in the preamble of C.I.A. II, 614; for this decree was 
passed in the archonship of Nikias’ successor. 


ὃ το. Gorgias.? 280/79 B.C. 


Plutarch places Gorgias in the tenth year before Pytharatos, 
Z.e., before 271/0 B.C.* His year is therefore 280/79 B.C. 


$11. Anaxikrates' and Demokles,’ 279/8-278/7 B.C. 


These archons are dated by Pausanias in the second and thi:d 
years respectively of the 125th olympiad, z.¢., in 279/8 and 278/7 
B.C. The statement of Diogenes Laertius that Metrodoros’ death 
occurred seven years before that of his master Epicurus 
(271/0 B.C.), when supplemented by the testimony of Philodemos 
that Metrodoros died in Demokles’ archonship, vouches for the 
correctness Of Pausanias’ assertion. 


$12. (.)... laios.® 277/6 B.C.? 

A letter was written by Epicurus in this archonship. It there- 
fore belongs somewhere between 2787 and 271/0 B.C. 

δ. 13. Kleomachos.’ 276/5 B.C. ? 

At the time of Kleomachos’ archonship the tribe Ptolemais had 
not yet been created. The possibilities allowed by the secretary’s 
tribe are 276/5 and 240/39 B.C. For 252/1 B.C. Thersilochos is a 
preferable candidate. In two inscriptions, one belonging to the 
middle® and the other to the latter half? of the fourth century, 





'C.LA. IV 2, 331b; II, 614, Usener, Epicurea, p. 134. 

?[Plut.] X Orat. Vitae, p. 847 Ὁ. 

3 See below ᾧ 17. 

(1.4. II, 1193; Paus. X, 23, 14. 

5C.LA. II, 321; IV2, 615 Ὁ; Paus. X, 23, 14; Usener, Epicurea, p. 368 ; 
cf. Gomperz, Hermes, V (1871), p. 387. 

*Usener, Epicurea, p. 134. 

TO.LA. IT, 336. 

8 C.I.A. II, 870. 

9C.1.A. II, 1028. 





Si thE SENS SSE PRBS ea ο CEE RS 


LO a a et τ" 


22RD CRORES Ie 


πη gi τ πος NN BSE 








. 
ΠΣ Σ ὌΠ σα 


τὸς ἐμούς ρα 


ei He deat Πα τΥ Ὁ ΘΠ" 


DN cc τόνε σεις τέο 


ἘΝ aE a IED 0 0 ς gic REEL CWE τ 


275|4-274|3 Before Chrest. 23 


there are found the names of two persons, one of whom may be the 
father of the fourth συμπρόεδρος and the other the father of the 
secretary of C.I.A. II, 336. If this is so, there exists a slight 
reason for preferring the earlier year for Kleomachos. 


$14. Polyeuktos' and Hieron.’ 275/4-274/3 B.C. 


That Polyeuktos and Hieron held office in the order given is 
shown by C.I.A. IV 2, 323b. In the earlier year, on the thirtieth 
of the gth prytany, the Athenians passed a decree accepting the 
invitation of the Aetolians to take part in the Soteria, music il and 
gymnastic games which they were instituting in commemoration 
of the repulse of the barbarians from the sanctuary of Apollo at 
Delphi.* A Chian decree of similar purport, passed like the 
Athenian in the generalship of Charixenos in Aetolia, was found 
by the French at Delphi. It is thought too that a sepulchral vase 
from Alexandria bears the epitaph of a Delphian who died while 
at the court of Ptolemy Philadelphus for the purpose of extend- 
ing a similar invitation to him. 

In 279/8 B.C. the Gauls were driven with great loss from 
Delphi: in the following year bands of them still roved through 
Greece: in 277/6 B.C. their last inroad was checked by An- 
tigonos Gonatas,® but not until their main body had got defi- 
nitely settled in Central Asia Minor® could Greece feel secure. 

The secretaries demand for Polyeuktos and Hieron the years 
275/4 and 274/3 B.C. Since it was in the latter part of the year 
275/4 B.C. that the request was made at Athens, it is likely that 
it was not till the following year that the Soteria were first cele- 
brated. Indeed if, as is probable, the Soteria were held in the 
month Bukatios (Metageitnion) at the same time as the Pythia 
and under the same presidency as the Pythia, it was with peculiar 





1C.LA. II, 322, 323, 324; Ditt. Syil. 150. 

2C.1.A. IV 2, 323 Ὁ; for the general location of Polyeuktos see Dumont, 
Essai, p. 20. 

δὑμόμνημα [τῆς αὑτῶν εὐσεβείας κ]αὶ τῆς νίκης τῆς γενομένης πρὸς τοὺς 
βαρβάρους τοὺς [ἐπιστρατεύσαντας ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸν τοῦ ᾿Απόλλωνος τὸ κοινὸν τῶν 
Ἑλλήνων καὶ ἐ[πὶ τοὺς "EAAnvas]. 

4.1.4. II, 321. 

5 XXV, 2; cf. Thirlwall, VIII, p. 72. 

6 In about 275 B.C. according to Holm, ET. IV, p. 96. 








1 
ἣν 





24 The Athenian Archons. 


appropriateness that they should have been instituted in the 
third year of an olympiad, ‘That this was the case Pomtow’s 
p.avsible restoration of the Chian decree above referred to-- 
γίνεσθαι δὲ εἰς τὸ λοιπὸν] τὴν ἀπόδειξιν τῶν θεωρῶν Kad’ ἑκάστην 
πενταετηρίδα ὅταν κ[αὶ οἱ εἰς τὰ Πύθια καθιστ]ῶνται---- 65 far to prove.' 
Hence the games to coinmemorate the defeat of the Gauls at 
Delphi were instituted only when all the states composing the 
Amphictyonic League could breathe freely again. The pre- 
ceding Pythia came in the midst of the danger. 

But the Soteria were a penteteris’, and on one known occasion 
(197/6 B.C.) were held in the fourth year of an olympiad. 
Therefore the first celebration must have been in 277/6 B.C. So 
scholars have reasoned, following Dittenberger*. But Ditten- 
berger himself has shown that in the time in which this ‘one 
known occasion’ falls, the Soteria were no longer a quadrznnial 
but an annual festival. He therefore withdrew his statement 
that the games came in the fourth year of an olympiad‘. Further 
it is now pretty evident that the Soteria were never a penteteris 
at all; tor, since Dittenberger’s Sylloge appeared, Reisch® and 
Pomtow® have shown that the ‘one known occasion’ is not 
known, and that in place of being in the year 197/6 B.C., it be- 
longs in the neighborhood of 270 B.C. What the Chians do, when 
they accept the invitation extended by the Aetolians, is to select 
theoroi καθ᾽ ἑκάστην πενταετηρίδα for the included years not for 
each fourth year. Few, however, have noticed these facts and 
the ‘earlier assertion of Dittenberger forms the basis for dating 
the Alexandrian vase inscription referred to. This reads as fol- 
lows: L © Σωτίων Κλέωνος Δελφὸς θεωρὸς τὰ Σωτήρια ἐπανγέλλων " διὰ 
Θεοδότου ἀγοραστοῦ.Ϊ ‘he only οἱ year of any Ptolemy, which 





'Fasti Delphici, N. Jahrb. f. cl. Phil. CXLIX (1894), p. 505 ff. 
2 Ditt. Syll. 150, 1. 29. 

3 Ibid. 149, note 1. 

* Ibid. 404, note 1, p. 593. 

> De musicis Graecorum certaminibus, 1885, p. 88 ff. 

6 Fasti Delphici, 1. c. 

‘Merriam, A.J.A. I (1885), pp. 22 and 30ff.; Strack, Rhein. Mus. LIII 
(1898), p. 413, n. 1; Wilcken, Gott. gel. Anz. 1895, p. 142; Néroutsos- 
Bey, Rev. Arch, III, ro (1887), p. 64 and L’ancienne Alexandrie, p. 113 f. 
The latter places the epitaph in Euergetes’ reign. 


ie it RIBS ET A le nT EO ES SEI 





jee 


a 








ml 






EA ΩΣ SA POM GE a SEO 


SaaS SALI RT A ch ak nc RDO. SNR 





274/3-273/2 Before Christ. 25 


was at the same time the fourth of an olympiad, was 277/6 B.C. 
in Philadelphus’ reign. Therefore, we are told, Sotion was one 
of those who came to Alexandria to announce the institution of 
the Soteria. Since the Soteria did not to our knowledge fall 
exclusively in the fourth year of an olympiad, it is evident that 
this dating has no foundation whatever,’ inasmuch as theoroi 
were customarily sent round to proclaim the celebration of festi- 
vals not their institution only.’ 

The sacrifice which the overseers of the mysteries for Polyeuk- 
tos’ year made in behalf of King Antigonos shows that the com- 
mon danger arising from the Gauls had temporarily brought the 
Athenians and Macedonians together ἢ Pyrrhos had not yet 
seized Macedon. 


2 


$15. Eubulos.' 273/2 B.C. ? 
C.I.A. II, 331, 1. 54 ff. runs as follows: καὶ ἀγωνοθ(έ )rns 


χειροτονηθεὶς (Φαῖδρος) ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου ἐπὶ Νικίου ἄρχοντος ἐπεμελήθη τῶν τε 
θυσιῶν κτλ. -- καὶ ὕστ[ερον͵] τοῦ ὑοῦ Ovpoxdpov ἀγωνοθέτου χειροτονηθέντος 
[ἐς τὸ]ν ἐνιαυτὸν τὸν ἐπ’ Εὐβούλου ἄρχοντος συνεπεμελήθη κτλ. It is 
evident that some years intervened between Nikias (282/1 B.C.) 
and Kubulos. ‘The inscription from which I have just quoted, 
which was passed in Eubulos’ archonship or in the year im- 
mediately following, certainly belongs to a time in which the 


‘In the year in question there was a great concourse of theoroi to Alex- 
andria (Merriam, p. 32). The names of both the Egyptian and Macedonian 
months were used in dating a document—a custom which is more in accord 
with the fashion of the third than of the second Ptolemy (Mahaffy, Empire 
of the Ptolemies, p. 206). The great féte of 239/8 B.C., the oth year of 
EKuergetes’ reign would well explain the presence of so many theoroi 
(Strack, Die Dynastie der Ptolemder, p. 227 ff.; Néroutsos-Bey, Rev. Arch. 
l.c.), In the Class. Rev, XIII (1899), p. 78, n. 2, Dr. A. Wilhelm says: ‘I 
have to thank Mr. H. Pomtow for kindly informing me that he considers 
Ζωτίων (sic) KAéwvos as a brother of Πασίων Κλέωνος, named as manuniis- 
sor (516) in an inscription from Delphi (Wescher-Foucart, Inscriptions de 
Delphes 159) and as living therefore in the first half of the second century 
B.C.”’ 

? Haussoullier B.C.H. V (1881), p. 313. 

5C.LA. IV 2, 323 Ὁ; cf. II, 307, 1. 10 ff., 374, 1. 6 ff., Add. Nov. 373 b, 1. 
14 ff.; IV 2, 374d. 

*C.LA. II, 329, 331, 1. 58, 1141. 








26 The Athenian Archons, 


Athenians were on particularly good terms with Antigonos 

Gonatas, The number of excisions proves that much. It pzob- 

ably, therefore, preceded the year of Pyrrhos’ death (272/1 B.C.), 
inasmuch as the power falling to Antigonos in consequence of 
that event speedily dissatisfied the Greek states. Within the in- 
terval the most likely vacant year is 273/2 B.C. That the most 
friendly relations existed between Athens and Antigonos in 
275/4 and 274/3 B.C. we know from C.I.A. IV 2, 323b.! 271/0 B.C. 
is already occupied and the formidable league formed in 267/6 B.C.’ 
agaiust Antigonos, of which the Athenians were the head, makes 





it unlikely that in 269 or 268 B.C. Antigonos was their good 
and honored friend. Of the two years 273/2 and 272/1 B.C. the 
earlier is perhaps preferable. In harmony with this date are the ᾿ 
following name identifications: One of the senators for Eubulos’ 
year’ was Καλλικράτης [Π]υθοδήλου Κολλυτεύς, His father is the 
Πυθόδηλος Κολλυτεύς of C.I.A. II, 1020 (c. 330 B.C.).4 So also 
the father of the man who made the motion in C.I.A. IT, 329 
[Si]uos ᾿Επικράτου Αἰθαλίδης is probably the "Emxparyns Αἰθαλίδης of 

C.I.A. II, 1020. Among the διαιτηταί for 325/4 B.C.> was 

| 'Ἐπιγένης Ἔρχιεύς, the grandfather perhaps of the senator Ἐπιγένης --- 

| Ἐρχιεύς of Eubulos’ year, Among the Halaieis in c. 350 B.C.® 

| was [’A@jv]urmos ᾿Α[θ]η[νίἼππου, the father or grandfather of the : 

᾿ 

| 

| 

| 

| 





senator ᾿Αθήνιππος ᾿Αθηνίππου ᾿Αλαιεύς of Eubulos’ year. ‘The secre- 
tary for 302/1 B.C.’ Νίκων Θεοδώρου Πλωθεύς was a senator in 
Eubulos’ year. For Διότιμος Μελανθίου Φιλαΐδης see below, p. 32, 4 
and for the two sons of Polyeuktos of Phegaia see below, p. 27. : 





The Μένων ᾿Αχαρνεύς of C.I.A. IT, 331, 1. 100 occurs again in the i 
4 

decree of Arrhenides’ archonship (263/2 B.C.) preserved by Di- 4 
ogenes Laertius.® Ἶ 
1 866 above p. 25. ᾿ 


2 See below p. 28. 
i °C.1.A. II, 329. 
ae *Mitth. V (1880), p. 346. 
5 C.I.A. II, 943. 
® C.I.A. II, 1208, 1. 20, 
™C.LA. II, 269, 270; IV 2, 269 b, c. 
S VII, 12; cf. Ditt. Syll. p. 251, note 26. 





ΠῚ 
we 
᾿ 
εν 
Ἵ 
, 
ig 
ig 
i 





Se A VA ACR ATE RENN υ 





SALE SACS Re eo τὸν, 


eka 


ἀρ ορ βιεοίρς wre. 


MeN IST 








272|1-268/7 Before Christ. 27 


ὃ 16. Philoneos.' 272/1 B.C. ἢ 


The paidotribes for the ephebes in Philoneos’ archonship was 
Ἑρμόδωρος Ἑορτίου ᾿Αχαρνεύς. In Menekles’ year’ (283/2 B.C.), 
and in Polyeuktos’ year’ (275/4 B.C.) he filled the same office. 
His son was an ephebe in Philoneos’ year. Among the senators 
for Eubulos’ archonship* (273/2 B.C.?) were Χαι[ρ]έστρατος Πολυ- 
e[v]xrov and ᾿Αντιφῶν Πολυε[ὕκτου both Φηγαιεῖς. One of the 
ephebes for Philoneos’ year was Πολύευκτος ’A -- -- τος @yyatev(s), 
The number of letters in his father’s name is uncertain, but judg- 
ing from the certain completion of the tribe-name Παν διονίδ]ος 
which must be made in the line immediately following, 
᾿Α[ντιφῶν]τος would suit the lacuna admirably. Among the thes- 
mothetai® for 221/0 B.C. was Εὔνικος Σ[ φήτί τιος)}] who, no doubt, 
is the ephebe Evuxos ’A[ -- -- Σ]φήττιος of C.I.A. II, 338, just as 
the king-archon® for 229/8 B.C. Αἰνησίδημος Συπί(αλήττιος) is the 
ephebe Αἰ[ν]ησίδημος ᾿Αγαθοκλέους Συπαλήτί(τιος) of Philoneos’ year. 
A grandson of Tefo]ias Φωκιάδου 'EXevoino[s] of C.I.A. IT, 338 is 
to be recognized perhaps in the Τεισίας ᾿Ελευσίνιος of 183/2 B.C." 
All these data point to the neighborhood of 275 B.C. for Philo- 
neos, and he may be provisionally assigned to 272/1 B.C. 


$17. Pytharatos.* 271/0 B.C. 


Diogenes Laertius says that Epicurus died in this archonship, 
in the second year of the one hundred and twenty-seventh 
olympiad, z. e., in 271/o B.C. 


$18. Philokrates.® 268/7 B.C. 


In one of the Herculanean fragments we read :” To[v II Jo[Acuwva] 
κατὰ Φιλοκράτην ἐγλιπε[ῖν] τὸν βίον. ’Avriyovos S[@] γ[ρ]άφει, δ[ι67τι 
IC.LA. II, 337, 338. 2C.LA. IT, 316. 

SC.LA. II, 324; cf. also IT, 339, 340, 341? 

*C.LA. II, 329. 5C.1.A. II, 859, 1. 40. 

®C.LA. II, 859, frg. ἃ, 1. 6. TC.LA. II, 983, col. I, 1. 58. 

®C.LA. II, 1292, 1293; Diog. Laert. X, 15; [Plut.] X Orat. Vitae, pp. 847 
D, 851 D; Cic. De Fato, 9. 

®C.LA. II, 278, 1332; IV 2, 331 c; Gomperz, Jenaer Literatur. 1875, Ὁ. 
603, note; Suidas s.v. Iodéu-yy* Φιλοστράτου ἢ Φιλοκράτους. 

10 Gomperz, 1. c.; cf. Schtschoukareff, Ath. Archons, p. (182; Cornell 
Studies, VII (1898), p. 60. 








28 The Athenian Archons. 


Π[οἸλέμωνος τελ]7ευ[τ]ήσαντος ὁ [Kpdr]ns δια[δ]εξάμενος [τὴν δι]ατ- 
ριβ[η]ν καὶ κριθεὶς ἄξιος εἶἾναι τ[ἢ]ς ἡγεμονί[ς, τῶν ἑταί Ἰρων [μὲν 
αὐτόν -. Under the year 268/7 B.C. in the Latin version of 
Eusebius' is found: Polemo filosofus moritur post quem Arche- 
silas et Crates clari habentur. Under the same year the Greek 
version’ has: Πολέμων θνήσκει ὃ φιλόσοφος μεθ' ὃν ᾿Αλκέτας καὶ 
Κράτης γνωρίζονται. Under the year 273/2 B.C. the Armenian ver- 
sion’ has a similar notice. ‘lhe secretary for Philokrates’ year 
being from the tribe Demetrias the best attested location of 
Polemon's death is undoubtedly correct, 


$19. Peithidemos.’ 267/6 B.C. 


In this archonship the alliance formed by the Athenians with 
Areus I of Sparta and his allies, to codperate with Ptolemy 
Philadelphus in resisting the aggressions of Antigonos Gonatas, 
was ratified at Athens, Χρεμωνίδης 'EreoxAdovs Αἰθαλίδης, the lead- 
ing spirit in the war,® made the motion to that effect in the 
assembly there. The time of the war is defined by the fact that 
the death of Areus took place while it was still in progress.® 
Areus succeeded to the throne of Sparta in 309/8 B.C. and reigned 
44 years." His death therefore occurred in 265/4 B.C. It was 
not till after the death of Pyrrhos in the late fall of 272/1 B.C.* that 
it was possible for this war to get under way. Hence the limits 
within which Peithidemos was archon are 270/69 and 265/4 B.C.° 
Of the years in this interval 270/69 and 26g9/8 are decidedly too 
early ; for in 263 B.C. Athens was still being besieged": 268/7 
B.C. is already occupied: 266/5 B.C., though preferred by 


1 Euseb. p. 121. 

2 Ibid. p. 120. 

3 Ibid. ; cf. below p. 29. 

*C.LA. IT, 332, 333; cf. IV 2, 333. 

5 Hegesandros, in Athen. VI, 250f. 

§Plut. Agis, III; Just. XXVI, 2 and Prol. XXVI; cf. Paus. IIT, 6. 
™Diod. XX, 29. 

δ ΟΠ πίοι, F.H. II, p. 238 = 290, n. z. 

®Rangabé, Ant. hell. 453. 


10 Aelianos, frg. 11; cf. Diod. XXIII, 7; Wachsmuth, Die Stadt Athen, I, 
p. 628, n. 2. 








SN OC 








267/6-264/3 Before Christ. 29 


' is rightly rejected by Koehler’ as too near the 


Dittenberger, 
death of Areus to be the year in which the Greek states united to 
ward off the expected attack of Antigonos, ‘The war had been in 
progress for a considerable time before Areus was killed, 267/6 


B.C. is therefore much the more probable date for Peithidemos." 
ἃ. 20, Diognetos.' 264/3 B.C. 


The calculations of Boeckh,’ by which Diognetos was assigned 
to 264/3 B.C., are amply confirmed by the new fragment of the 
Parian Chronicle." The arguments of those who would assign 
Arrhenides to 264/3 B.C. are considered under the head of the 
archon following, 


8. 21, Arrhenides,’ 263/2 B.C. 


In this archonship Zeno the founder of the Stoic school died, 
Hieronymos ascribes that event to the year of Abraham 1753,° 
which, as Johannes ‘Toepffer’ pointed out, coincides with the 
Attic year 263/2 B.C The Armenian version of Eusebius" 
assigns it to 2687 B.C., but the same authority assigns the death 
of Polemon to 273/2 B.C. which certainly happened in 268/7 B.C.; 
so, however it may have come about, the death of Zeno! is, like 
the death of Polemon, placed exactly five years too early. ‘The 
testimony of the Armenian version is therefore indirectly in favor 
of 263/2 BC. for Arrhenides. Nevertheless several scholars!? 
have preferred the year 264/3 B.C. for the reason that Hierony- 
mos ascribes the death of Zeno to ol, 129,1. This he undoubtedly 


‘Hermes, II (1867), p. 306; cf. however p. 301. 

Ὁ Note to C.I.A. II, 332. 

* For the literature on the Chremonidean war see Holm, ET. IV, p. 207 f. 

*C.LG. 2374, 1.3; C.LA. IV 2, 333 Ὁ. 

5C.1LG. II, p. 305 f. 

5 Mitth. XXII (1897), p. 183 ff; cf. p. 184, n. 1. 

’Diog. Laert. VII, 10; C.LA. II, 325; cf. IV 2, 325. 

8 Euseb. II, p. 121. 

®Griech, Alter. p. 106 ff. 

10 Euseb. II, p. 120. 

"See above p. 28. 

12 Wilamowitz, Phil. Unter. IV, p. 252; Rohde, Rhein. Mus. XXXIII 
(1878), p. 622 ff. ; Susemihl, N. Jahrb, f. cl. Phil. (1882), p. 744, n. 39. 








30 The Athenian Archons. 


does, but, apart from the fact that Diognetos certainly occupied 
that year, the year of Abraham and the year of the olympiad 
given by Hieronymos do not coincide: one must be wrong. 
Then there comes in the further consideration that the successor 
of Zeno, Kleanthes, was head of the school for thirty-two years! 
and died in Jason’sarchonship.?- Thirty-two years from 264/3 B.C. 
take us to 232/1 B.C. in which year Antiphilos was archon; 
thirty-two years from 263/2 B.C. take us to 231/0 B.C. and that 
year alone of those between 237/6 and 227/6 BC. lacks an 
archon.® It is true that the birth of Kleanthes is assigned on 
good authority to Aristophanes’ archonship (331/o B.C.)* and 
that he is said to have lived ninety-nine years; but the ninety- 
nine comes from less trustworthy sources® than the other data. 
He may have been born in the latter part of 331/o0 B.C. and have 
lived slightly over ninety-nine years, or the year of his birth may 
have been assigned by some one who carelessly calculated ninety- 
nine years back from Jason.°® 


§ 22. Olbios.” 2590/8 B.C. 


The secretary belongs to the tribe Aiantis. In C.I.A. II, 
602—a decree of the Mesogeoi passed in the year of Olbios or in 
that of his successor—the motion was made by Amynomachos, 
son of Philokrates, of Bate, whom we know as one of the heirs and 
executors of Epicurus.*, Amynomachos was accordingly in his 


'Gomperz, Rhein. Mus. XXXIV (1879), p. 154 ff. Gomperz and Meier 
(Commen. Epig. p. 81 ff.) resort to the desperate expedient of supposing a 
public funeral decreed and a tomb built for Zeno before his death (Diog. 
Laert. VII, 11; cf. Toepffer, Griech. Alter. p. 106 ff. ). 

*Comyaretti, Papiro Ercolanese inedito. Riv. di Filo. el. III (1875), col. 
XXVIIIF. p. 502 f.; cf. Gomperz, Jenaer Literatur. (1875), p. 605. 

5 See below 4 29 ff. 

* Rohde, 1. c. 

δ Lucian, Macrob. 19; Val. Max. VIII, 7, extr. 11. 

°Cf. Gomperz, J. L. p. 605: Tritt die letztere, vorlaufig minder werthvolle 
Nachricht mit positiver Bestimmitheit auf, so ist die erstere vielleicht das 
Ergebniss einer Rechnung,—ist doch das Geburtsjahr bedeutender Menschen 


aus naheliegenden Griinden oft um so vieles unsicherer als die Zeit ihres 
Todes. 


TC.LA. II, 602; IV 2, 345 Ὁ. 
8 Diog. Laert. X, 16, 














259/8-248/7 Before Christ. 31 


prime in 271/0 B.C. The tribe of the secretary allows us the 
choice of two years, 259/8 and 247/6 B.C. Of these the earlier is 
preferable. 


§ 23. Kallimedes' and Thersilochos.? 254/3 and 252/1 B.C. ἢ 


The secretaries show that one year came between these two and 
give us as possibilities 254/3, 252/1 and 2421, 240/39 B.C. ; for 
C.I.A. IT, 308 and 307 (IV 2, 307 Ὁ) show that we have to do 
with an ordinary year of twelve prytanies only. ΤῸ decide he- 
tween these two pairs of years is difficult. Two facts bearing 
upon a decision may be noticed: (1) Lines 8 and 9 of C.I.A. II, 
306 read as follows: [--or]paros ὁ πατήρ -- -- -- -- -- βασιλέως 
Anp[ytpiov ---]. As far as one may judge, it is here said that 
the father of the person eulogized in the decree did some services 
to Athens during the reign of Demetrios Poliorketes. If the de- 
cree was passed in 254/3 B.C., thirty-four, if in 242/1 B.C., forty- 
six years had already elapsed since Demetrios was driven from the 
throne. The shorter interval is preferable. Two years after the 
withdrawal of the Macedonian garrison from the Museion is a 
likely time at which to find the father of Antigonos mentioned in 
an honorary decree. (2) In Thersilochos’ archonship a disagree- 
ment between Athens and the Confederation of Boeotia was re- 
ferred for arbitration to the city of Lamia.’ Of this I can make 
no use. 


8. 24. Diogeiton.‘ 2487 B.C. 

In C.I.A. II Add. Nov. 352 b, in which this archon is found, 
the motion was made by ᾿Ακρότιμος Αἰσχίου ᾿Ικαριεύς. This indi- 
vidual® appears among the dedicators to Asklepios mentioned in 
an inscription drafted in 228/7 B.C. In it the donations are 
grouped according to the years of the priests in which they were 
given.’ There are extant the lists for fifteen years out of what 





'C.LA. II, 306, 307. 

"C.LA. II, 307, 308; IV 2, 307 Ὁ, ¢. 

3C.LA. II, 308; IV 2, 308 Ὁ; cf. 373 ἢ. 

(1.4.1 Add. Nov. 352 Ὁ. 

°C.LA. II, 836, lines 80 and 87; cf. IV 2, 1190 Ὁ and Merriam, 7th Annual 
Rep. of the Am. Sch. at Athens, p. 85 1. 

®See Girard and Martha, B.C.H. II (1878), p. 44r ff. 





| 





32 The Athenian Archons. 


seems to me to be a possible of about twenty.’ In the decree 
which authorized the making of the catalogue the object set forth 
Was, ὅπως οὖν Kat ἡ βουλ[ὴ καὶ 6 Sjpos--—-T]d θεῷ καθάπερ καὶ 
mpor[epov -—]. This I take to mean that a custom suspended 
during the Macedonian occupation of the city was to be revived. 
The list perhaps began after the Chremonidean war ended. The 
third priest remaining in the catalogue was Λυσικ[λ]ῆς Συπαλήττ(ιος) 
who is certainly to be identified with the ἀκοντιστής of Philoneos’ 
year (272/1 B.C. ?). So one of the dedicators during the priest- 
ship of Lysikles' predecessor was Διότιμος Φιλαΐδης, one of the sen- 
ators in Eubulos’ year’ (273/2 B.C.?). One of the ex-priests 
mentioned in the list was ’Apxi«Ajs Λακιάδ(ης)." The hieropoios 
for Lysiades’ archonship (166/5 B.C. Ὁ), ᾿Αρχικλῆς Λακιάδης," was 
perhaps his grandson. One of the dedicators during the fifth 
extant priestship was Σωγένης ’Orpu(vevs),° the father perhaps of 
᾿Απολλόδωρος Swyévov ’Orpuveds who was among the contributors in 
228/7 B.C.° ‘The thirteenth extant office-holding priest Πραξιτέλης 
(Τιμάρχου) Hipeo(idys)," in whose year ᾿Ακρότιμος was ταμίας, has 
been identified by Kirchner® with the Πραξιτέλης who in 228/7 B.C. 
made a contribution, The Θεογένης ᾿Αμφιτροπ(ῆθεν) who in the fif- 
teenth and last extant priestship’ made a dedication is probably 
the grandson of the ἐπιμελητὴς πομπῆς for 282/1 B.C.", Θεογένης 
Ποσειδωνίου ᾿Αμφιτροπῆθεν. The dedication of Akrotimos would 
seem to have been made after 235 B.C. Koehler" thought that 
Akrotimos, inasmuch as he was treasurer when the demos made a 
dedication, had held the office of ταμίας τοῦ δήμου Girard and 


‘The other nine priests mentioned in the list were presumably in office 
earlier than the date of the earliest extant annual catalogue. 

°C.LA. IT, 329. 

3C.LA. IT, 836, 1. 36. 

*C.LA, II, 953. 

5C.LA, IT, 836, 1. 39. 

66.1.4. II, 334, frg. ἃ, 1. 25. 

TC.LA. II, 836, 1. 82; ef. 11, 1480. 

® Indices to C.I.A. II, p. 44. 

§C.LA. IT, 836, 1. 102. 

C.I.A. IV 2, 318 Ὁ; for Evaylw» who made a dedication (1. 45 and 1, 56), 
see under Metrophanes. 

NC,LA. II, 836, note on ἢ. 318, 








* 
a 
of 
τ 
Ἢ 
ἮΝ 
be 
if 
# 
Ἢ 
s 








ree q 
rth Ἷ 
καὶ Ἶ 
led 
ed, 
‘he 
Los) 
Os’ 
2st- 
en- 
‘Sts 
10S 
vas 
fth 
of 
in 
Ans 
1as 
Ὁ ᾿ 
fif- a 
bly ; 
νῆς : 
114 2 
nat 4 
ea Ἵ 
nd 2 
fice a 
3 
ἘΠ 
6), 











246|5--2.1.5|.2 Before Christ. 33 


Martha! with equal right thought of 6 ἐπὶ τῇ διοικήσει. ‘I'here 
existed in the third century B.C. the ταμώς τῶν στρατιωτικῶν who 
seeins to me quite as likely to be meant as either of the other two.” 
The secretary gives us as possibilities for Diogeiton 272/1, 260/59, 
and 248/7 B.C. Because of the tangencies of Akrotimos the latest 
year is to be selected. 


§ 25. C.L.A. IV 2, 371 ο.᾽ 246/5 or 245/4 B.C. 


This is an inscription passed while Aristomachos was tyrant of 
Argos and therefore earlier than 240 B.C.‘: it however was later 
than the revolt of Alexandros, son of Krateros, from Antigonos 
Gonatas, and consequently subsequent to 250 B.C.°> The archon 
is lost, but the deme of the secretary is extant as follows: 
EII--—, There are only two demes which begin thus, Eireatos 
(Antiochis and Antigonis) and Εἰρεσίδης (Akamantis). The re- 
mainder of the third letter, as reproduced in the Corpus, is too 
far distant from the Iota to be the hasta of a Rho: it is best taken 
as the upstroke of a Tau. Further, between 250 and 240 B.C. 
Akamantis did not have the secretaryship, while Antiochis and 
Antigonis follow one another in 246/5 and 245/4 B.C. In either 
one of these two years C.I.A. IV 2, 371 c was passed. Hence 
the war between Antigonos assisted by Athens and Argos, and 
Alexandros, his nephew, occurred between 250 and 245/4 B.C.° 
In it Alexandros was apparently successful. 


ἃ. 26. — mon and........ "  245/4-244/3 B.C. 


The only places possible for — zon and his successor are 2 57/6, 
256/5 and 245/4, 244/3 B.C.; for C.I.A. II, 330 was passed in an 

‘B.C.H. 1. ς. 

*ilbert, Grk, Const. Ant. ET. p. 248, note 1. 

Wilhelm has made some further, as yet unpublished, additions to this 

inscription ; see also ’E¢.’Apx. 1892, p. 127 ff. 

‘Holm, ET. IV, p. 222 f.; Wilcken, Pauly-Wissowa, II, p. 945, s.v. 
Aristomachos (16). 

*Plut. Arat. XV; cf. Koehler, C.I.A. IV 2, Ρ. 95. 

®Ct. C.LLA. IV 2, 591 Ὁ. 

TC.LA. II, 330; the restoration of the name [Κίμωνος in frgs, b-e, 1. 7 has 
no warrant. 


3 





| 
i 
} 
| 
Ϊ 
Ϊ 


24 The Athenian Archons. 


intercalary year at the time of the twelve tribes. The names of 
the ephebes for the earlier of the two archonships are given. 
Among them are found: (1) A son of Dromeas of Erchia. The 
same name appears along with his father’s among the contributors 
for state defenses in the year 228/7 B.C.’ His father was like- 
wise a member of the sacred board in Glaukippos’ year.’ 
(2) Two sons of Heliodoros of Paiania. A Heliodoros was 
archon in 237/6 B.C.° (3) A son of Kichesias of Aixone. In 
C.I.A. II, 1047 (c. 125 B.C.) there is found along with Mikion 
and Eurykleides, sons of Eurykleides of Kephisia, Leon, the son 
of Kichesias, of Aixone.* This would make our son of Kichesias 
contemporary with Mikion, the son of Eurykleides, of C.I.A. 11, 
379, 1.3 (c. 228 B.C.). Alsoin C.I.A. IT, 859, 1. 30 (222/1 B.C) 
Kichesias of Aixone himself was one of the thesmothetai. Mani- 
festly 245/4 B.C. is preferable for — mon. 


8. 27. Glaukippos’ and ......(.?).® 241/o and 238/7 B.C. 


Glaukippos was archon in an intercalary year at the time of 
the twelve tribes.’ The secretary was from the tribe Pandionis. 
Conceivable are the following years: 277/6 ?, 265/4, 253/2, and 
241/0 B.C. Dromeas, son of Diokles, of Erchia, one of a board of 
religious functionaries commended in this archonship, was very 
prominent among the contributors for state defenses in 228/7 
B.C. This fact excludes 277/6 and 265/4 B.C. Diokles, the son 
of Dromeas, was an ephebe in what we have determined to be 
245/4 B.C. This favors 24t1/o0 B.C. Had the decree been 
passed in 253/2 B.C. itis not unlikely that in it mention would 
have been made of a sacrifice offered on behalf of Antigonos 


1C.LA. II, 334, 1. 37 f. 

“C.LA, II, 305. 

5C.L.A. IV 2, 335 Ὁ, c; see below p. 39. 

*Cf. (1.4. II, 448. 

5C.1.A. II, 305, 344?; IV 2, 305 Ὁ. 

8C.LA. IV 2, 373 ¢. 

7See Wilhelm, Hermes, XXIV (1889), p. 327 ἢ. The fact that the board 
commended in C.I.A. II, 305 consisted of thirteen inembers signifies nothing, 
inasmuch as the tribes were totally disregarded in their selection. 


Ἢ 
ἘΠῚ 


δέχοιο 





Sane 


Reyes Bo 


SE Ri Sra aes 


St ge aaa 


BRNO SOS car faa oe ΣΦ Pike 


EN eA. 








eee OO 








Bid 
Τὰ 
ἢ 
om 
% 
ἮΝ 
ἢ 
τὴ 
Ἢ 
Bi, 
Ν 


ἐπ. τα ere Fy Seesiecs 


ws 


4) 


Dae 





CBee δὲ ag an hs ἐπε a eS eee ee Pee 


res 


Ἢ 





241/0-238/7 Before Christ. 35 


Gonatas.' A similar omission is to be noted? in C.I.A. IV 2, 
373 ¢ which probably belongs to 238/7 B.C. Here the secretary 
is from the tribe Oineis. The thirteenth tribe had not yet come 
in. The possibilities are: 262/1, 250/49, and 238/7 B.C. Of 
these 2387 is to be preferred for epigraphical reasons.’ The 
epistates of the proedroi was Ζωΐλος Ζωΐλου Φλυεύς, Among the 
ephebes for Tychandros’ archonship (172/1 B.C.) was Νικοκράτης 
Ζωΐλου Pdvevs.* A comparison of the stemmata given below under 
Diomedon shows that the grandfather of a man who was an ephebe 
in (72/1 B.C. could not very well have been matured earlier than 
239/8 B.C. 


§ 28. Unlocated archons. 


At this point an alphabetically arranged list of the archons of 
the third century B.C. as yet unlocated may be inserted. The 
probability is that most of them belong to the period of the 
Macedonian domination. 

A--. 

C.I.A. IV 2, 373g, 1. 10. Because of an erasure in the inscrip- 
tion Koehler judges that it precedes 229/8 B.C. 

Agasias. 

C.I.G. 2035; Dumont, Essai, p. 111; Schoeffer, Pauly- 
Wissowa, II, p. 589. Early part of the century. 

Alexandros.® 

Eubulos, the son of Antenor, who upon the death of Moschion 
in 185/4 B.C.° came to the front for a short time in the Academic 
school, was born in the archonship of Alexandros. One may 
therefore with considerable certainty ascribe Alexandros to the 
last half of the third century B.C.  Biicheler assigns him to the 
neighborhood of 230 B.C. 





"Cf. CLA. IV 2, 323 ἢ; II Add. Nov. 373 Ὁ; II, 307, 374; IV 2, 374d. 

7In C.I.A. I, 325 (263-2 B.C.) it is also wanting. 

® Koehler, note on C.I.A. IV 2, 373 ¢. 

*C.LA. I, 1224; cf. ᾿Αθήν. IV, p. 461 ; Cornell Studies, VII, p. 46. 

*Biicheler, Index Herculanensis Academicorum Philosophorum, Gry phis- 
waldiae, 1869, p. 17. 

5 See below p. 57, n. 2. 





36 The Athenian Archons. 


Alkibiades. 

C.I.A. II, 374; Pollux, X, 126; cf. Wilhelm, Pauly-Wissowa, 
I, p. 1533. Wilhelm assigns him to the second half of the third 
century B.C. Schoeffer, Pauly-Wissowa, II, p. 589, places him 
between 260/59 ind 241/0 B.C. C.I.A. IV 2, 323 Ὁ does not 
allow the earlier limit to be imperative. 

Antipatros. 

᾿Αθήν. VIII (1879), p. 231 = C.1.A. IV 2, 616 b. Koumanoudes 
assigns him to the third century B.C. on the basis of the letter- 
ing ; cf. Pauly-Wissowa, I, p. 2501. 

(9%) aig DIOS; 

C.I.A. II, 335, 1.5. Among the σιτῶναι in office in this archon- 
ship was ['Ep/]wros Δημοφίλου [Μελιτε] vs who in 228/7 B.C. con- 
tributed 200 drachinae for the safety of the city and the defense 
of the country.' It therefore belonged to the latter half of the 
third century. Possibly the name should be restored Olbios (see 
above p. 30) though the stone shows a greater lacuna. 

Hagnias. 

C.I.A. II, 372, 617. The secretary’s name is Ποτάμων Ao- 


ν[ακος -- -- -- ἢ]. Koehler places this archon near the middle of the 
third cent. B.C. 
Lysiades. 


C.I.A. II, 345, Add. Nov. 373 b. This archon probably be- 
longs to the time of the twelve tribes and to the reign of An- 
tigonos Gonatas. The erasure in C.I.A. II Add. Nov. 373 Ὁ of 
itself indicates that it is earlier than 229/8 B.C. Koehler assigns 
him to the middle of the third cent. B.C. or a little later. ‘The 
secretary was ᾿Αριστόμαχος ᾿Αριστο[δ] ἡ[μου -- ] . The chairman of 
the proedroi was [E] dxdpuoros Χάρητος ᾿Αφιδναῖος. In C.I.A. II, 403 
(207/6 B.C.) one of the members of the Areopagus was Χάρης 
*"Adidvaios, Are they father and son? In C.I.A. II, 835 A, 1. 28 
(320-317 B.C.) one of the persons to dedicate things to Asklepios 
was [Κρ]α[ν]αός --. The Kpavads Κτησιφ[ὥντος] of C.I.A. II Add. 
Nov. 273 b, lines 4 and 32 was evidently a votary of Asklepios. 
Are they grandfather and grandson ? 


'C.LA. II, 334, frg. ἃ, 1. 20. 











wa, 
hird 
him 

not 


ides 





Ee a NEN eT a 
BS ES oie oes 








eS 
et if 
ioe 
ᾧ 


Unlocated Archons. 37 


Lysitheides. 

C.I.A. II, 620; IV 2, 620b; cf. Foucart, B.C.H. VII (1883), 
p. 68 ff. Both Koehler and Foucart think that the lettering be- 
longs to the third cent. B.C. Foucart suggests that the Sokles of 
C.I.A. IV 2, 620b is the same as the Sokles of C.I.A. IV 2, 
611 b, 1. 45 (300/299 B.C.), in which case Lysitheides would be- 
loug to the early part of the century. Among the contributors in 
228/7 B.C. (C.I.A. II, 334, frg. d, 1. 32) there was a Λυσιθείδης 
ἜἘρχι(εύς). 

Pheidostratos. 

C.I.A. II, 1199. Kirchner, Rhein. Mus. LIII (1898), p. 388, 
suggests that the Δεινίας Κηφ [to] δότου Βουτάδης of C.I.A. II, 1199 
is the grandson of the Kydgioddo[ros -- -- ] Bov[radys] of C.I.A. 
IV 2, 868 Ὁ. Since the latter lived in about 350 B.C. Pheidostra- 
tos, he states, would be archon in about 250 B.C. 

Philinos. 

C.I.A. IV 2 Add. 619 ¢c. Ina decree of the Athenian citi- 
zens stationed at Eleusis it is mentioned that their general 
Sosikrates of Sphettos had been [rlap[las τῶν στ]ρα[τι7 [τικῶν] 
for the year of Philinos’ archonship. On the basis of the lettering 
Philios (Mitth. XIX (1894), p. 176 f.) assigns the decree to the 
neighborhood of the end of the third cent. B.C. 

Philippides. 

C.I.A. II, 1333. This archon is ascribed on the basis of the 
lettering to the third cent. B.C. 

Proxenides. 

C.I.A. II, 391. Proxenides is ascribed by Koehler to the third 
cent. B.C. The secretary was Εὔβουλος Εὐβουλίδ[ου — 1. 

Pythokritos. 

C.I.A. II, 862; cf. Koehler’s note. Rangabé assigns him to 
the time of the Macedonian domination. 

Sosistratos. 

C.I.A. II, 1295. In Sosistratos’ archonship Θεοφάνης Διοσκου- 
pidov Ἑωνυμεύ[ς] was agonothetes, and Sokrates, a Rhodian, 
played the flute for the victorious men’s chorus. This same 





288. The Ather'an Archons. 





Rhodian is mentioned in Wescher-Foucart, 4, 1. 14 (c. 270 B.C.).! 
In C.I.A. IV 2 Add. 1402 b, p. 308, and in Ἐφ. "Apx. 18y2, p. 
45 (300-250 B.C.) a Διοσκουρίδης is named who was probably a 
son of Θεοφάνης. In C.I.A. IV 2, 251 ὃ (305/4 B.C.) among the 
ephebes from Euonymon, a brother in all probability is found, 
Because of these identifications made by Kirchner and Reisch,? 
Sosikrates has been assigned by the former to the neighborhood 
of 290 B.C. Inasmuch as there is no place for an archon before - 
2787 B.C. (assuming Telokles as certain for 284/3 B.C.), a more 
likely location would be at about 275 B.C. 
Theophemos, 
C.I.A. II, 373. The secretary was Προκ[λ]ήῆς "At -- --, Theo- ) 
| phemos is assigned by Kirchner (Indices to C.I.A. 11) to the ) 
| middle of the third century B.C. A Theophemos was ora/or in | 
᾿" C.I.A. II, 334 (2287 B.C.). 4 
Thymochares. : 
C.LLA. II, 371. We are still at the time of the twelve tribes. ‘ 
i In C.I.A. II, 371 the tribe in the prytany must have been Deme- 
| | trias, and the συμπρόεδρος, -- - Λαμπτρεύς, must have belonged to 
Erechtheis. ‘The secretary was Sworparo[s] "A[pi]or[............ - 
we]. Koehler places the inscription at about the middle of the 
third century B.C. In Eubulos’ archonship (273/2 B.C.?) a man ‘ 
of this name, son of the general Phaidros, was agonothetes. In yi 
229/8 B.C. a Thymochares occurs among the contributors. All 
three belong to the same family. It is possible that they are the 
same person. 
C.I.A. II, 390. 
The secretary was [----- ἐκ K] day of the tribe Erechtheis. On 
| ᾿ the basis of the lettering Koehler (Hermes, V (1871), p. 335) 
| thinks this inscription hardly later than the second half of the 
| H third century B.C. The archon being gone, the possibilities would 
seem to be 255/4, 243/2, 231/o, and 218/7 B.C. 
C.I.A. IV 2, 407 ἢ. 


i 
i 
ἢ 
Yt 
# 
ἢ 
ah 
‘e 
ν᾿ 


aire 


= 


Ss ὃ ο-ςς-.-.---- 





1Pomtow, N. Jahrb. f. cl. Phil. CXLIX (1894), Ρ. 506; Reisch, De musicis 
Graecorum certaminibus, 1885, p. 88 ff. 
2 Kirchner, Rhein. Mus. 1111 (1898), p. 287 f. ; Reisch, op. cit. p. 85, n. 1. 











2 





ἜΘ SIG ΘΗ aa 


237/6-220/19 Before Christ. 39 


The genitive of the archon’s name ended in sigma, The in- 
scription is ascribed by Koeller to the latter half of the third 
century B.C, 


§ 29. Heliodoros' and Archelaos,’ 237/6 and 220/19 B.C. 


In Archelaos’ archonship the 3d day of the fourth prytany fell in 
the third month, Boedromion.’ Only when the prytany had less 
days than the month, z.e., when there were thirteen tribes and 
twelve months could this happen. The fact that in this year a μὴν 
ἐμβόλιμος was added‘ points to an intercalary year, and therefore 
to thirteen months also: but on the other hand the insertion of this 
mouth after Anthesterion, and not after Posideon as was usual, 
is a mark of some irregularity or unknown regularity. The year 
began as though it were going to be an ordinary year of 354 days. 
After Gamelion had begun, for some cause or other it was decided 
to add an intercalary month. A precedent for inserting another 
month than Posideon was found in the year 307/6 B.C.° That it 
marks the introduction, in 307/6 B.C. of the tribes Antigonis and 
Demetrias, or in 220/19 B.C. of the tribe Ptolemais, does not follow.® 

Part of C.I.A. IV 2, 385 c was passed in Heliodoros’ archonship, 
and part in Archelaos’, but since Heliodcros belongs to the time 
of the twelve tribes, and Archelaos to that of the thirteen, there 
is found at once a reason for believing that some years intervened 
between them.’ Further, that in Archelaos’ year certain honors 
decreed in Heliodoros’ year’ to a distinguished Cretan were rati- 
fied a second time, suggests that in the meanwhile a new party 
had come into power. We see from the decree that this new 


1C.1.A. IT, 384; IV 2, 385 Ὁ, c. 

°C.LA. II, 431; IV 2, 385 ς, 

3Cf. Bates, Cornell Studies, VIII (1898), p. 27. 

4C.LA. IV 2, 385 ¢, 1. 48. 

S5C.LA. IV 2, 733. 

ὁ See Koehler’s note to C.I.A. IV 2, 240 Ὁ. 

ΤΟΥ, Homolle, B.C.H. XV (1891), p. 362: ‘on imagine volontiers que le 
rappel des décisions inéxecutées a dt se faire dans l'année méme qui en 
suivit le vote ; mais le vague du mot πρότερον appliqué a ce vote, l’interven- 
tion d’un orateur nouveau, les changements apportés au premier décret 
semblent impliquer un plus long délai.” 

8C.LA. IV 2, 385 c; the Bukris of this decree has been identified with a 
Naupaktian who figuresin a Delian decree which Philios, the son of Charilas, 
moved. I see no reason why this Philios is not the father, rather than the 





\ 


40 The Athenian Archons. 


purty was led by Eurykleides and Mikion, who upon the with- 
drawal of the Macedonian garrison in 229 B.C. became the lead- 
ing men of the state. Archelaos must have been archon between 
229/8 and 213/2 B.C.; for in the latter year Kurykleides and 
Mikion were poisoned by order of Philip V of Macedon,' The 
secretary is from Antigonis, and in this period in only one year 
could Antigonis have had the secretaryship, véz., 220/19 B.C, 
The link between Archelaos and Heliodoros is the recurrence in 
a decree of each archon’ of the name Εὐμαρίδας Πανκλέους of Ky- 
donia. Since even before Heliodoros’ year this individual had 
been active in Athens’ interest, and since he continued rendering 
services up to Archelaos’ year, it seems to me that one of the 
alternatives presented for Heliodoros by the secretary, v7z., 249/8 
B.C. is to be rejected astoo early. Indeed the reference in C.I.A, 
II, 384, 1. 11 to βασιλέως ᾽Α [ττάλου] should perhaps have excluded 
this year from our consideration altogether; for the first Attalos 
became King only in 241 B.C.*° The only other year for Helio- 
doros is 237/6 B.C. ; for in 224/3 B.C. there were thirteen tribes, 
whereas in Heliodoros’ year there certainly were only twelve.‘ 


$ 30. Leochares,® Theophilos,® Ergochares,’ Niketes,* 


son, of Charilas II who was archon at Delos in 220 B.C., though for my pur- 
pose it is immaterial. See B.C.H. XV (1891), p. 3591. Bukris is also men- 
tioned as hieromnemon at Delphi in two inscriptions, one of which Pomtow 
(Rhein. Mus. LI (1896), p. 356; cf. Wilhelm, Gott. gel. Anz. 1898, p. 224) 
assigns to a time a little later than 230 B.C. 

'Paus. II, 9, 4. 


®C.LA. IV 2, 385 c. Homolle (B.C.H. XV (1891), p. 362) places Helio- 
doros in 217-6 B.C. and interprets this decree in the light of the giimpse of 
Cretan affairs given us by Polybius, IV, 53-55 and VII, τι, It might be so 
interpreted if it were known that Heliodoros was archon in 217-6 B.C., but 
the circumstances s#ecessary for the understanding of the decree jibe so 
closely with the normal situation in Crete that I do not see how they can 
serve to date Heliodoros. 

3 See Wilcken, Pauly-Wissowa, II, p. 2159 ff. The restoration ’A[rrd)ov] 
is of course uncertain and disputed ; cf. Phil. Unter. IV, p. 253. 

*C.LA. IV 2, 385 Ὁ. 

5 C.I.A. II, 1102; for the whole group see C.I.A. 11, 859. 

C.I.A. IV 2, 381 b; the secretary’s tribe must have been Aiantis and the 
deme began with ’A. ᾿Αφιδναῖος is the only one possible. 

TC.LA. II, 381. 

8 C.I.A. II, 1216; cf. IV 2, 1216. 


A pea bi Be Sir Gone RS 








4 


SS 


Sis RSS 


LEER 


Fins 


τὰ 


sins 
SS 


noes 














weet Oe Ey re 


Ὁ 
GOT Ste ν᾽ 











a cat ib Se iit Sa Ὁ ΜΌΝ 











236/5-220/19 Before Christ. 41 


Antiphilos,| ——, ——, Menekrates,’ (Diomed)on, —~—, 
—, » «eeeeeS, Diokles,* Euphiletos,'‘ and Herakleitos.° 
236/5-221/0 B.C. 





These are the archons given us by C.I.A, II, 859. After 
Antiphilos there is a break in the stone and another after 
Serre jon. The number of the archons which intervene in 
either interval is unknown. It is limited however by the size of 
the stone. ΤῸ assume that between Diokles and Antiphilos there 
intervened twenty-one years would be extremely bold, if not im- 
possible ; for to each year there belonged a list containing ten lines, 

In Ergochares’ archonship the tribe Ptolemais* had not yet 
been created: in Menekrates’ archonship it was in existence, 
For Ergochares’ archonship the secretary was from Antiochis, 
for Diokles’ from Hippothontis. The only conceivable possibili- 
ties for these two secretaries are 234/3 or 221/0 and 223/2 or 210/09 
B.C. Of these the alternatives 221/0, 210/09 are impossible ; for 
otherwise the whole subsequent scheme of the official order 
would have to be drawn back one year, because Ptolemais could 
not then have had the secretaryship in 227/6 B.C. But the com- 
plete coincidence’ between the tribes of the secretaries for 168/7, 
125/4, t12/1, aud ror/o B.C. and the tribes which should furnish 
the secretaries in those years if it were not so drawn back, proves 
conclusively that to draw it back is impossible. ‘Therefore the 
only years for Ergochares and Diokles are 234/3 and 2232 B.C. 
By this means Leochares is fixed to 236/5, Theophilos to 235/4, 
Niketes to 233/2, Antiphilos to 232/1, [...... ]s to 224/3, Euphi- 
letos to 222/1 and Herakleitos to 221/o B.C. 


ὃ 31. Chairephon’ and Aischron,® 225/4 and 217/6 B.C. 





1E@. ’Apx. 1897, p. 42 ff. 

"CLA, ΤΙ, 618, 1195, 1591; "Ed. ᾿Αρχ. 1897, p. 42 ff. 

*C.LA. II, 839; IV 2, 385 d, 619 Ὁ, 1. 18. 

*C.LA. II, 619; cf. "Ed. Apx. 1897, p. 39 f.? 

5C.LA. II, 619; IV 2, 385 e. 

ὁ Bates, Cornell Studies, VIII (1898), p. 28 ff. 

*Cornell Studies, VII (1898), p. 44 ff.; A. J. P. XIX (1898), p. 314 f. 
8C.LA. IV 2, 619 b; II, 622. 

*C.LA. IV 2, 619 Ὁ. 











| 
| 
| 














42 The Athentan Archons. 


To such a date for Diokles the following passage from C.I.A. 
IV 2, 6t9b, 1. 24 ff. might be thought to be hostile; γινομένης 
δὲ καὶ τῆς πανη[γύρε] ὡς τῶν ᾿Ἐλευσ [[ι]νίω[ν] τῶμ μεγάλων ἐν τοῖς ἔτεσιν, οἷς 
ἐστρατήγηκεν (Δημαίνετος), ἔθυσεν ταῖς θεαῖς μετὰ τῶν ἐξ ᾿Βλευσῖνος περὶ 
τ[ἢ]-ς τοῦ δήμου σωτηρίας' ἐπεμελήθη δὲ καὶ τῆς τῶν μυστηρίων [τελ] ετῆς 
καθ᾽ ἑκάστην στρατηγῴν. ‘The Eleusinia, which are to be distin- 
guished from the Mysteries, were held annually, but in connec- 
tion with them came a Trieteris and a Peuteteris. It is generally 
thought that these fell on the first and second, or third and fourth 
years of an olympiad respectively, and that when the Eleusinia 
are termed τὰ μεγάλα, the Penteteris is meant. Schtschoukareff' 
takes the passage quoted to mean that in each year of Demainetos’ 
generalship the Penteteris was held, and that therefore the three 
archons in whose years he was general, Chairephon, Diokles, and 
Aischron came each in the third or fourth year of an olympiad. 
Diokles however comes in the second year of an olympiad : more- 
over, what the decree says is that ‘‘ when the féte of the great Eleu- 
sinia fell in the years in which he was general he sacrificed etc.,’’ 
which only gives us warrant for holding that the great Kleusinia 
came in more than one of the three years. Indeed the absence 
of πᾶσι when contrasted with its presence in the same phrase a 
few lines farther on—-kal ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἔτεσι[ν ad] τοῖς προδιδοὺς ἀργύριον 
εἰς ἐσθῆτα κτλ. ----, should in itself have told us that Demainetos on 
two occasions only had had a chance to take part in the great Kleu- 
sinia. Since Diokles’ year is excluded, the other two must be 
those of the great féte and are preferably 225/4 and 217/6 B.C., 
since A. Mommsen has presented good reasons for placing the 
Penteteris in the fourth year of an olympiad.’ 

Further, C.I.A. IV 2, 619 b*® has been assumed to prove that 
Chairephon, Diokles, and Aischron all came after the accession of 
Philip V to the throne of Macedon (221/o B.C.).* But this does 
not at all follow. The decree is passed by the soldiers in the 
φρούρια under the command of the στρατηγὸς ἐπὶ τὴν χώραν τὴν ἐπ᾽ 


1B.C.H. XII (1888), p. 74 ff. 

2 Feste der Stadt Athen im Altertum, (1898), Ὁ. 179 ff ; cf Ἐφ. ’Apx. (1896), 
p. 26, no. 5. 

SCf. "Ep. ’Apx. (1897), p. 41 f. no. 12. 

4 Schtschoukareff, B.C.H, XII (1888), p. 71. 





iret ies 


ete: 
Soe 


See nees, 


st 


sya A 


he 


ii easy 


= 


Pe 





C.I.A, 
νομένης 
ἐσιν, οἷς 
γος περὶ 
A] τῆς 
distin- 
nec. 
erally 
‘ourth 
isinia 
areff' 
1etos’ 
three 
, and 
piad, 
1ore- 
‘leu- 
δι ἢ 
sinia 
ence 
sea 
ὕριον 
on 
leu- 





Sais 





PS Ty AS aS ν 


es 


‘ 


δι 
ΡΣ 


231/0-230/29 Before Christ. 43 


Ἐλευσῖνος, In it, before proceeding to recount the services ren- 
dered to themselves by Demainetos their general in the three 
archonships mentioned, they refer to the rewards bestowed upon 
him by the people of Athens for his public services. These 
public services were undoubtedly performed by him in and be- 
tween the years in which he was general. ‘The present tense 
διατελεῖ used in reference to them, as contrasted with the aorist 
διετέλεσεν used in reference to his past private services, makes this 
the only fair interpretation of the passage. His public services 
are mentioned first in the decree because of the precedent and con- 
firmation found in the state’s recognition of them for the recogni- 
tion his soldiers are about to give of his services to themselves in 
his capacity of general. ‘They consisted in his numerous em- 
bassies to Philip, and to the Aetolian League with the object of 
securing peace with both, and of preserving Attic territory from 
injury at the hands of either. They are such, as Schtschoukareff! 
shows, as could have been performed only during the Social War 
(221/o-216/5 B.C.). The year assigned for the third generalship of 
Demainetos, 217/6 B.C., accords well with this fact. 


$ 32. Jason.’ 231/0 B.C. 

Jason was archon thirty-two years after Arrhenides. therefore 
in 231/0 B.C, 

§ 33. Kalli-’ 230/29 B.C. 

‘The evidence favors the year immediately preceding Menekrates 
for Kalli-. FromC.I.A. II, 1591 it seems that a girl was arrhe- 
phoros in these two archonships. Since that was an office open 
only to maids when between seven and eleven years of age'—dré 
ἐτῶν ἑπτὰ μέχρις ἕνδεκα -it would appear that 230/29 B.C. is the 
only possible year for Xal/i-; for Menekrates comes in 229/8 
B.C. and the preceding seven years are already occupied. 


Mle, 

? Rohde, Rhein. Mus. XXXIII (1878), p. 622 ff. ; see above p. 30. 

FC.LA. I, 1591; cf. Schtschoukareff, B.C.H. XII (1888), p. 79. 

*See Hunziger, Daremberg et Saglio, s.v. Arrhephoria; cf. Mommsen, 
Feste der Stadt Athen, p. 108, n. 1; Etym. Mag. s.v. ἀρρηφορεῖν. 








| 
| 





44 The Athenian Archons. 
§ 34. Menekrates.'’ 220,8 B.C. 


See under Diomedon. 
$ 35. Diomedon,’ 228/7 B.C. 


If one tries to complete the dating of C.I.A. II, 334 it is found 
that only at the time of the thirteen tribes and in an ordinary 
year is that possible. Before the ἐμβόλιμος day of Elaphebolion 
there must have passed 266 days. At the time οἱ the thirteen 
tribes the 267th day corresponded to the fourth of the tenth pry- 
tany. The decree should therefore read as follows: 

Ταμίας στρατιωτικῶν] 

Εὐρυκλείδης Μικίωνος [Κηφισιεύς] 
[[ἘΠπὶ Διομέδοντος ἄρχοντος ἐπὶ τὴς [ Δημητριάδος" δεκάτης mp] υτανείας, 
9 Φορυσκίδης ᾿Αριστομένου ἃ [λιμούσιος' ἐγραμμάτε] εν: ᾿Ελαφηβολιῶνος 
ἕνει καὶ νέᾳ ἐμ[ βολίμῳ τετάρτει τῆς] πρυτανείας: ἐκκλησία' τῶν προέδρων 
ἐπεψήφιζεν ......... ατος Ἰελεσίνου ᾿Ερχιε[ὺς κ] αἱ συ[μπρόεδροι] - 
ἔδοξεν τῷ δήμῳ 

[Θε] όφημος Τιμοκλέους Μαραθώνιος εἶπε[ν] κτλ. 

‘Theophemos’ motion was to the effect that voluntary contribu- 
tions—not under 50 drachmae nor over 2co to be accepted from 
anyone—be solicited, in order that the treasurer of the military 
department might have the wherewithal to insure an unmolested 
harvesting of the crops. Then foilowed a list of at least one 
hundred and twenty names of those who had responded to the 
appeal, and very prominent among them were those of EKuryklei- 
des and Mikion of Kephisia. There is now no reason to doubt 
the identity of these two individuals with the statesmen mentioned 
by Polybius, Plutarch, and Pausanias® as dominating Athens be- 
tween 229 and 213 B.C. The many correspondences of names 
found in the list referred to with those found in inscriptions 
of the last half of the third century B.C. is strong corroborative 
evidence. One has only to mention Hierokles of Sunion,® Niketes 


1 See above p. 41. 

"CLA. II, 334, 836, 859, frg. d, 1. 15; IV 2. 618 Ὁ. 

δ See Koehler’s remark on C.I.A. II, 836. 

* See below p. 47. 5 See below p. 45, n. 4. 
6C.LA. I, 982. 











found 
inary 
lion 
rteen 

pry- 


ΕΣ: 
᾿Ξ 


See 


229/8—228/7 Before Christ. 45 


of Pergase,' Eriotos of Melite,? Aischron of Paiania, Thymo- 
chares of Sphettos, Lysitheides of Erchia, Chairephon of Hitea, 
Sosigenes of Paiania, and Theophemos of Marathon—the last six 
of whom were perhaps archons. More conclusive still is the evi- 
dence of names which belong to well known families. Compare 
the following stemmata : 
I. Deme = Kephisia. 
Mikion$ (c. 250 B.C.). 


Mikion. ‘ Eurykleides' (c. 225 B.C.), 











Mikion  (c. 200 B.C.). 
| 


Eurykleides® (c, 175 B.C. ). 








— 


i Tw. 
Mikion’ (c. 150 B.C.). Eurykleides® (c. 150 B.C.). 


nea eH ὃ 


Habryllis, 9 Eurykleides" (c. 125 B.C.). 





Mikion"! (c. τοῦ B.C.). 


| 
Lysistrate!? (c. 75 B.C.). 


"CLA. II, 550, Add. 1392 b; IV 2, 385 d, 1. 44 (223-2 B.C.) ; "Ed. ᾿Αρχ. 
1897, p. 40, no. 9. 

2C.LA. II, 335. 

δ Otherwise unknown. 

*Plut. Arat. XLI; Polyb. V, 106; Paus. II, 9, 4; C.I.A. II, 334, 379, 858; 
IV 2, 385 c. The activity of these two brothers is included within the limits 
229 and 213 B.C. 

°C.LA. II, 379 (c. 228 B.C.), 858 (c. 225 B.C.), 966 B, 1. 21 (ὁ. 190 B.C.), 
982 (c. 200 B.C.), 983 (183-2 B.C.); IV 2, 1161 b (c. 210 B.C.) ; Head, 
Historia Numorum, p. 319. 

°C.LA. I, 966 A, 1. 39 (c. 190 B.C.), 983 (183-2 B.C.) ; Head Η. Ν. p. 320. 

"CLA. II, 966 A, 1. 44 (c. 190 B.C.; at this time he is styled vewrepos Jr.) ; 
1047 (c. 125 B.C.) ; Head, H.N. p. 321. 

*C.LA. II, 970 (c. 150 B.C.),1047 (c. 125 B.C.); Head, H. N. p. 321. 

9.1.4. II, 1388, 2169. 

WC.LA. II, 1047 (c. 125 B.C.; his name is among the later additions to 
this list but probably the first names were inscribed earlier than 125 B.C.). 

1 Otherwise unknown. 

"C.LA. IV 2, 477d. This stemma disagrees in some respects with that 
given by Kirclimer in his Prosopographiae Atticae specimen, 1890, p. 8. 
For my purpose here the value of both is equal. The years opposite the 
names in my stemma indicate the approxiniate time at which each flourished. 





{ 





46 The Athenian Archons. 


II. Deme = Erchia. 
Diokles! (ον, 260 B.C.). 
| 
Dromeas? (c. 235 B.C.). 


Diokles® (c. 210 B.C.). 


— -----.- 


Dromeas‘ (c. 185 B.C.). 


eos Acre 


Diokles® (c. 160 B.C.). 


-- 











Diokles® (c. 185 B.C.). 


— 














_ 


Dromeas’ (c. 160 B.C.). 
III. Deme = Phyle. 

Asklepiades. ® 

Xenon? (c. 260 B.C.). 

ἀ νηορί μονα (c. 225 B.C.). 


Xenon" (c. 190 B.C.). 





— 





a 


Xenon! (c, 120 B.C.). 








Philanthes'® (c. 150 B.C.). 





Asklepiades  (c, 120 B. C.). 
Apollophanes"® (c, 80 B.C.). 


So the great-grandson of Pausimachos of Kolonos” appears to 
have lived in the neighborhood of 150 B.C. 





1 Elsewhere unknown. 
2C.LA. IT, 305 (241-0 B.C. ), 334 (228-7 B.C. ). 


3 C.I.A. IT, 330 (245-4 B.C. ; Diokles was an ephebe in this year), 334. 
*C.LA. II, 953, col. II, 1. 82 (153-2 B.C.). 

® C.I.A. II, 982 (c. 200 B.C.). 

6 C.I.A. II, 1047 (c. 125 B.C.). 


TO.LA. ΤΙ, 444, 1. 73 (161-0 B.C.), 445, 1. 53 (158-5 B.C.). 
8 Elsewhere unknown. 


96.1.4. II, 334 (228-7 B.C.). 

OC.LA. II, 334 (228-7 B.C.), 1216; cf. IV 2, 1216 (233-2 B.C.; in 
Niketes’ archonship Asklepiades was general), 

1 CLA. II, 983, col. I, 1. 98 (183-2 B.C.), 420 (186-5 B.C.). 

"C.LA. IL, 983, col. I, 1. ror (183-2 B.C.), 1047 (c. 125 B.C.). 

C.I.A. IT, 983, col. I, 1. 102 (183-2 B.C.); B.C.H. XVI (1892), p. 376f. 
(132-1 B.C.). 

4 B.C.H. VI (1882), p. 320 (118-7 B.C.); ΠΙ (1879), p. 371 (118-7 B.C.); 
XV (1891), p. 252 (c. 135 B.C.). 

'5 Rlsewhere unknown. 


®C.LA. II, 465, 1. 74 (105-4 B.C. ; Apollophanes was an ephebe in this 
year). 


NC,LA. II, 334; ef. II, 1047, 1. 28. 








* 
δ: 


‘a 


i ab ἐκ εξξς 


ws 
| 





ees, 


Wie aang ht es base 














we 





ae 


aN 









- 


οτος τ 





ee 


τὰ 
Ἵ 
τ 


ΕΟ ΥΞ 


= 


229|8-228/7 Before Christ. 47 


Not only do the members of these families whose names are 
found in our inscription of Diomedon’s year appear in other in- 
scriptions of the latter part of the third century, but they are all 
four generations earlier than those who represented the same 
families at about 150 B.C. If six generations had intervened, 
some traces of the fourth and fifth should have remained. Every- 
thing points to the last part of the third century for Diomedon, a 
fact, as Koehler states, now generally conceded: ‘‘nemo hodie 
dubitat quin Diomedon archon non ad tempora belli Chremonidei 
sed ad ultima decennia saeculi tertii referendus sit.’?! 

Now, when we come to consider the secretary, we find that his 
deme-name was A[......... 7. A careful consideration? of all the 
deme-names extant shows that only four are possible, ᾿Αλωπεκῆθεν, 
᾿Αμαξαντεύς, ᾿Αλιμούσιος, and ᾿Αμυμωνεεύς, The last name must be 
rejected at once, inasmuch as it is found only in late Roman 
times.*° The two first have to be rejected also, and for this 
reason: between 229/8 and 213/2 B.C.—the year in which 
Rurykleides and Mikion were murdered—there is no place for a 
secretary from either Hippothontis or Antiochis. ᾿Αλιμούσιος 
alone remains. For the tribe to which it belongs, Leontis, there 
are two possibilities, 228/7 and 215/4 B.C. But in the list of con- 
tributors already referred to‘ there is found the name of Lykon, 
the philosopher, who according to Diogenes Laertius succeeded 
Straton as head of the Peripatetic school in the one hundred and 
twenty-seventh olympiad, and remained head for forty-four 
years.” Hence the very latest date at which he could have been 
alive is 225/4 B.C. This leaves 228/7 B.C. as the only possible 
year for Diomedon. 





'Note to C.LA. IV 2, 618 Ὁ. 

? That given by me in Cornell Studies, VIT (1898), p. 51, was not careful 
enough, It is now easily possible by means of Bates’ lists (Cornell Studies, 
VIII (1898), p. 64 ff.) to make such a consideration. 

*It belonged to Hippothontis at any rate and hence is liable to the same 
objection as ᾿Αμαξαντεύς. 

*C.LA. II, 334, frg. d, 1. 29. 

ὃν, 68, 





| 
) 
) 





48 The Athenian Archons. 

The successor of Menekrates in the archonship was [...... Jov.! 
Menekrates came between 230/29 and 224/3 B.C. With Kalli -- 
and [...... 7ὼν he forms a compact group of three within the interval. 


Assuming for Diomedon 228/7 B.C. as certain, and for Chairephon 
225/4 B.C. as probable, we have then two positions for Mene- 
krates, according as we fill up [......]ov with Διομέδων or Χαιρεφῶν, 
viz., 229/8 or 226/5 B.C. ‘The latter however is impossible ; for 
it would force Kallaischros’ into the position of immediate pre- 
decessor of Diokles, whereas C.I.A. II, 859, frg. Ὁν 1. 3 shows 
that the predecessor of Diokles had only seven letters in his name. 

The contributions made in Diomedon’s archonship with a view 
to the preservation of the city and the defense of the country, 
find now a ready explanation. We see how it was that the Athe- 
nians, upon the withdrawal of the Macedonian garrison through 
the judicious use which Aratos made of Ptolemy’s money, were 
not forced to throw in their lot with the Achaean League.’ The 
citizens themselves came forward, the rich with their money,‘ 
and the poor with their services. The expenses were met by vol- 
untary contributions, and the country was defended by citizen- 
garrisons in Eleusis, Phyle, Panakton, and in the open country. 
The fortifications of the harbours were strengthened and the 
walls of the city repaired.’ The new era was marked by a new 


1C.LA. II, 859, frg. d, 1. 15. 

? This name is largely restored but it certainly had at least eleven letters ; 
cf. Ed. ᾿Αρχ. 1897, p. 42 ff. no. 13. 

8 Holm, ET. IV, p. 228 f.; see Bates, Cornell Studies, VIII, p. 31 f. 

‘The popularity of the movement for independence is shown by the large 
number of citizens who in the space of one month in 228-7 B.C. contributed 
for state defenses the maximum amount of two hundred drachmae; cf, 
C.I.A. II, 379 for a case of individual patriotism. 

5C.1.A. I, 379, 380; in 380 there are several references which suggest 
C.LA. II, 334, δ. »΄., ἐξ ἐπιδόσε[ ὡς], els τὴν σωτηρίαν τῶμ π[ολιτῶν], [ἐ]πέδωκεν 
καὶ ὑπὲρ ἑαυ[τοῦ καὶ ὑπὲρ τῶ]ν ὑῶ[ν] ἀμφοτέρων ὅσον πλεῖστον (7, ὁ., 200 
drachmae). This being so, the phrase, καὶ [ν]ῦ[ν τοῦ δήμον εἰς τὴν ὀχύ]ρωσιν 
τοῦ ἐν Léa λιμένος ψηφισαμένου ἐπίδοσιν] which must be connected with the 
καὶ τοὺς λιμένας ὠχύρωσ[ ε] of C.I.A. II, 379 (after 229 B.C.), is a confirmation 
for the location of C.I.A. II, 334, ἢ. é., Diomedon, in the neighborhood of 
228-7 B.C, 








a aa RE aN di Se ee eR ie 


gam 


renee eset eo 





pict TIO ne 








rs; 





πῶς ΒΝ ms ys νϑυσιμευι» 
eG SEE EERE MTEL οι τα ΘΟ ΠΡ γος aes 


2, 
ic πα 


RRO φβονυοάο ρίαν TTIPST a 


228/7-227/5 Before Christ. 49 


series of Attic coins with an appropriate device." The period was 
one of religious activity as well. In Diomedon’s archonship a 
sacred table and ewers were placed in the Asklepieion, and a list 
of the donors and their dedications to its god was published.? In 
Diokles’ archonship a committee appointed by the people to take 
down and re-adjust the material in the temple made its report,’ 
and in Thrasyphon’s year the gold and silver offerings to the 
hero-physician were made over into an oinochoe to be dedicated 
by the senate to the same god.‘ A new temenos was consecrated 
to the Demos and the Graces,’ and the two men, to whom the 
liberty of Athens was mostly due, Diogenes and Ptolemy, were 
honored, the one by the institution of the Diogeneia, the other 
by the introduction of the Ptolemaia. Guided by the wise coun- 
sels of Eurykleides and Mikion, Athens looked towards Rome, 
Attalos, and Ptolemy as guarantors of her neutrality, and during 
the stormy close of the third century, when the whole Mediter- 
ranean basin, Italy, Spain, Carthage, Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor, 
Crete, Rhodes, Byzantium, Macedonia, Aetolia, Achaia, and 
Sparta resounded with the din of war, Attica enjoyed a season of 
comparative peace. 

§ 36. [Ka]lla[ischros] ὃ. 227/5 B.C. 

Theophrastos, a gymnasiarch in Antiphilos’ archonship and a 
hipparch in Menekrates’ archonship was promoted to the general- 
ship of Eleusis in that of Kallaischros. This points to a close 
connection between the three archons. The years intervening 
between the last two can hardly have been as mary as ten, 
especially since the inscription lacks any indication of such an 
interval. The Ptolemy mentioned in connection with Theo- 
phrastos’ functions as gymnasiarch was Ptolemy Euergetes."| Had 


1 Head, H. N. p. 316 ff. 

2C.1.A. II, 836; cf. above ἢ. 31 f. 
3C.LA. IT, 839. 

4C.I.A. II, 403; ef. Add. 405 b. 

5 Koehler, note to C.I.A. IV 2, 385 c. 
δ᾽ Ἐφ. ’Apy. 1897, p. 42 ff. no. 13. 
ΤΟΙ, C.LA. II, 381. 


4 








50 The Athentan Archons. 


Kallaischros been archon after Archelaos (220/19 B.C.) the reign- 
ing Ptolemy would have been Philopator. Something more than 
the title King would have been required to distinguish the two, 
and this, as far as we can judge, was wanting.' Therefore the 
probabilities for Kallaischros are 227/6 or 226/5 B.C. 


$37. C.L.A. IV 2, 385 ἢ. 226/5 or 213/2 B.C. 


This decree belongs to the time of the thirteen tribes. The 
secretary was ‘ApiororéAns Θεαινέτου Κε[ φαλῆθεν] of the tribe 
Akamantis, The possibilities are 226/5 and 213/2 B.C. Between 
them I see no way of deciding. The archon’s name had ten 
letters in its genitive case. If 226/5 B.C. is chosen, then 
Kallaischros probably belongs to 227/6 B.C. 


§ 33. Patiades and Kallistratos.’? 216/5 and 206/5 B.C. 


These two archons are found in the metrical frig‘nent of 
Apollodoros’ chronicle quoted by Philodemos in his list of the 
Acadeinic philosophers. As deciphered by Gomperz it runs: 

—éxrw καὶ δέκα, 
Τοσαῦτα δ᾽ ἕτερα προσλα[ β]ὼν τὴν τοῦ βίον 
Μεταλλαγὴν ἐποιήσατ᾽ ἐ[π]ὶ Καλλιστράτου, 
"Emi Πατιάδου δ᾽ ἕτεροι λέγουσιν, ὧν δέκα 
Ἔτη [δ] λιπεῖν, τἀπὶ πᾶσι διὰ. ν[όσ] ov: 
Ἔγένοντο δ᾽ αὐτοῦ Πασέας τε καὶ Θράσυς 
Τρίτος δ᾽ ᾿Αρίστιππος συνήθεις καὶ δύο 
[Emon] μότατοι μά[λι]στα Τηλεκλῆς τε καὶ 
Εὔανδρος ---. 

The names Telekles and Euandros show clearly that we have 
to do with the philosopher Lakydes, who, according to Diogenes 
Laertius,® died in the year 216/5 B.C. One of the two archons, 
Kallistratos and Patiades, certainly belongs to that year: the 
other comes ten vears before or after. 


Gomperz thinks that 


'In 272-1 B.C. ? Ptolemy I was termed πρεσβύτερος ; see C.I.A. II, 331. 
2C.I.A. II, 406; the secretary was ᾿Αγνωνίδης ’Ararov[plo]v—; Biicheler, 
Index Herc. Acad. Phil. col. XXVII, p. 17; Gomperz, Sitzungsb. ἃ. k. 
Akad. d. Wissens. zu Wien, CX XIII (1890), VI, p. 83 ff. ;cf. Preuner, Hermes, 


XXIX (1894), p. 554. 
SIV, 60f, 





207/6 Before Christ. 51 


Patiades was archon in 216/5 B.C. and Kallistratos in 206/5 B.C. 
His reason for this view is that in the life of Lakydes there is 
assigned by Diogenes Laertius an interval of twenty-six years 
between the death of Arkesilaos in 242/1 B.C. and that of 
Lakydes in 216/5 B.C., only part of which was spent by him as head 
of the school, Apollodoros on the other hand, who selected 
Kallistratos’ archonship as that of Lakydes’ death, allows to him 
eighteen years as head of the school and eighteen years besides, 
or thirty-six in all, noting at the same time the discrepancy of 
ten years that existed between the two archons to whose years 
his death was assigned. Kallistratos therefore was thirty-six, 
Patiades twenty-six, years later than 242/1 B.C. This reasoning 
seems to me satisfactory. Gomperz then identifies Kallistratos 
with the AKad/i— of C.I.A. II, 1591. In this he is clearly 
wrong ; for under no circumstances could Menekrates and his 
successors in C.I.A. II, 859 have come later than 206/5 B.C. 
The relations of Athens with the Aetolians and Philip known 
to exist in the archonships of Chairephon, Diokles, and 
Aischron are conclusive on that point ; for, if Menekrates came 
in 205/4 B.C., Diokles could have been archon only in one of the 
two years 2021 or 201/o B.C., at which time the Athenians had 
little desire to be friendly with Philip, or tocommend anyone for his 
efforts to obtain his friendship for them. Besides, the ser retary 
will not allow Diokles to be archon in either of these two yc ars, 


δ. 39. Thrasyphon.' 207/6 B.C. ? 


The secretary was -- -- τοῦ Παιανιεύς of the tribe Pandionis or 
Antigonis. This individual belonged to Autigonis ; for had he 
belonged to Pandionis the o .ly possibilities would be 216/5 and 
203/2 B.C., both of which are already occnpied. Therefore 207/6 
B.C. alone is possible for Thrasyphon. The ἀντιγραφεύς who in 
2232 B.C. is termed νεώτερος appears in Thrasyphon’s archonship 
without that title.’ 

'C.LA. 11, 403. 

"CLA. II, 839, 1. 10; II, 403, 1. 52. 











52 The Athenian Archons. 


8 go. Ο.1.4. II, 2385. 205/4 B.C. 

The secretary was -- ς Meveorpdrov Λαμπτρεύς of the tribe An- 
tigonis or Erechtheis. In the decree the following phrases occur : 
[r]¢ τε ἄστυ καὶ rou Πειραιᾶ καί, Εὐάνδρου σχολάς, [ὁ βα]σιλεὺς "Ἄτταλος. 
The first refers to the events of 229 B.C. With regard to the 
other two Koehler says: conlaudabatur homo quidam Pergamen- 
us qui quum Athenis scholas Euandri Academici frequentasset, 
postea in patriam redux apud Attalum regem de Atheniensibus 
bene meritus erat. Euander suscepit principatum scholae Aca- 
demicae post Lacydem a. 215 a. Ch., vid. Diog. Laert. IV 8 
(Cic. Acad. pr. II 6). This dates the inscription between 216/5 
and 197 B.C.—the year of Attalos’ death. Within these limits 
the only year possible is 205/4 B.C. 

§ 41. Antimachos,’ 203/2 B.C.? 


The secretary belonged to the tribe Pandionis. Different 
periods are assigned to Antimachos. Sclitschoukareff places him 
in the last quarter of the third cent.: Koehler, Unger, and 
Wilamowitz are in favor of the first quarter: Schoeffer inclines 
towards the middle and Wilhelm is non-committal. There would 
seem therefore to be the following possibilities: 277/6?, 265/., 
253/2, aud 203/2 B.C.’ The identifications made by Schtschou- 
kareff of two names found in C.I.A. II, 303, 304 with similar 
names found in C.I.A. II, 983 (183/2 B.C.) are strongly in favor 
of the latest year.* In Antimachos’ archonship citizens and mer- 
cenaries were stationed at Eleusis: the Athenians had some deal- 
ings with the Rhodians: contributions had recently been made 
for the defense of the city. These are our only other clues for 
distinguishing between the years mentioned above. 


C.I.A. II, 303, 304, 1349; cf. 496. 

? Indeed it is difficult for me to see why 191- and 179-8 B.C. should be 
excluded. Perhaps the lettering determines that much. 

SIn (1.4. II, 304 Λυκομήδης Δι -- made the motion: in C.I.A. IT, 983, col. 
II, 1. 59 (183-2 B.C.) [A]uxouy[6ns] contributed [on behalf of himself and 
son and also] on behalf of a second son Διονυ[σ---Ἴ. In C.I.A. II, 303 — . . . ς 
᾿Αριστοῖμ. . ον Παλ[λην]7εύς put the motion: in C.I.A. II, 983, col. III, 1. 
81 (183-2), among the contributors was [— ᾿Αρ]ιστομάχον Παλλη( ves). 





| 


{ 
i 
x 
§ 
ἢ 
li 
[ἢ 
4 
= 





EE fe BINS Soliant 


oe 





203/2-202/1 Before Christ. 53 


In 253/2 B.C. Macedonian garrisons guarded Attica: contribu- 
tions for the defense of the city would be then less natural.’ In 
265/4 B.C. the Athenians were cooped up in the city by An- 
tigonos Gonatas: a garrison at Eleusis would be quite improb- 
able. These tworyears should therefore be rejected, There is 
nothing known of the situation at Athens in 277/6 B.C. to satisfy 
any one of our three requirements. Moreover these three years are 
almost certainly excluded by Schtschoukareff’s identifications, 
There remains only 203/2 B.C. If C.I.A. II, 303 and 304 belong 
to this year, they prove that the year was intercalary : they do 
not prove that there were only twelve tribes. 


δ 42. Nikophon and Dionysios.’ c¢, 210 B.C. ? 


Nikias, the son of Polyxenos, of Poros, who made the motion in 
Phanarchides’ archonship performed a like function in Dionysios’ 
year.” In Dionysios’ archonship the priest of Aphrodite and the 
Graces was Mikion, the son of Eurykleides, of Kephisia, whose 
ἀκμή may be placed at about 200 B.C.! Nikophon preceded 
Dionysios immediately.> Schoeffer assigns the pair to the period 
216-206 B.C.° which would seem as near right as we can now get. 


§ 43. Phanarchides.’ 202/1 B.C. ? 


This archon came in the third year of an olympiad. The 
Eumaridas of the two earlier decrees of C.I.A. IV 2, 385 c (237/6 
and 220/19 B.C.) was now dead, and his son was confirmed in 
his proxenia by Athens. Mikion and Eurykleides were probably 
dead also, for they no longer patronize the Cretan family. 210/09 
and 202/1 B.C. would seem to be the preferable years’ for Pha- 


"Cf. however C.I.A. IV 2, 373 g. 

ἜΟΙΚΑ, II, gor; IV 2, 623 b; 1161 Ὁ. 

SC.LA. IV 2, 385 ¢; II, gor. 

*C.LA. IV 2, 1161 Ὁ. 

®C.LA. IV 2, 623 Ὁ. 

6 Pauly-Wissowa, II, Pp. 590. 

TC.LA. II, 392; IV 2, 385 ¢. 

* Head, H. N. (Holm, ET. IV, p. 351) thinks that Kydonia, the native city 
of Eumaridas and his son, was represented at the congress held in Athens in 
201 B.C. 





54 The Athenian Archons. 


narchides. His successor is mentioned in C.I.A. II, 392 as 6 
μετὰ Φαναρχίδην and occupied an intercalary year. ~The secretary 
for the latter year was Προκλῆς Hep. —. 


8 44. Sosigenes.' c. 200 B.C. ἢ 

The inscription from which we get Sosigenes is headed thus : 
"Emi Σωσιγένου ἄρχοντος ο[ δε τ -- καὶ] τὸν πύργον dv[é]O[yxav]. ‘The 
following names among those given in the list demand for 
Sosigenes a place somewhere midway between 228/7 and 183/2 
B.C.: Mikion, Diokles, Archias, Aischron, Sosigenes himself, 
Hierokles. The stemma of the Echedemos’ family is as follows : 

Deme = Kydathenaion, 

Mnesitheos? (c, 240 B.C.). 


Echedemios® (c. 310 B.C.). 


---------- ὁ ὁ ΞΡ 


Isandros* (c, 280 B.C.). 











Mnesitheos® (c, 280 B.C.). 
Echedemos® (c. 250 B.C. ). 
Mnesitheos’ (c. 220 B.C. ). 
sea ame (ce. 190 B.C.). 


ne 





rf 


Mnesitheos? (c. 160 B.C.). Arketos" (ς. 160 B.C.). 
Mnesitheos" (c. 130 B.C.). Echedemos" (c. 130 B.C.), 


Inasmuch as C.I.A. II, 982 lacks the names of the two famous 

1C.1.A. II, 982. 

2 Otherwise unknown. 

5 Ephebe in 334-3 B.C; see C.I.A. IV 2, 563 Ὁ. 

4C.LA. II, 1403; IV 2, 318 b (282-1 B.C.). 

5C.LA. IV 2, 318 Ὁ. 

δ 1.Α. II, 1403. 

7Unknown but necessary, inasmuch as the father of Mnesitheos and 
Arketos of C.I.A. II, 983 (183-2 B.C.) cannot have been the son of the 
Mnesitheos of C.I.A. 1V 2, 318 b (282-1 B.C.). 

SC.I.A. 11, y82, 983. 

®C.LA. II, 983, 966 (post 191 B.C.). 

C.I.A. II, 446 (c. 150 B.C.), 983 (183-2 B.C.). 

™C.LA,. II, 1047 (c. 125 B.C.), 446 (c. 150 B.C. ). 

C.I.A. II, 446 (c. 150 B.C.). 








pe cee 


188/7-186|5 Before Christ. 55 


statesmen Eurykleides and Mikion' there is a likelihood that it 
belongs after 213 B.C. Schoeffer places it in the period 216-206 
B.C. I can see no reason for fixing any definite terminus ante 
quem, c. 200 B.C. should not be far wrong. 


ὃ. 45. Symmachos,’ Theoxenos,’ and Zopyros.‘ 188/7-186/5 
B.C. 

That these three archons follow one another directly in the 
order given is evident from C.I.A. II, 975, frg. a. The secre- 
taries for Symmachos’ and Zopyros’ years are extant and give us as 
possibilities for our group 200/199, 199/8, and 198/7 B.C. and 188/7, 
187/6, and 186/5 B.C. 213/2 B.C. and following are excluded 
by the fact that in Symmachos’ archonship there certainly were 
only twelve tribes.° Later than 188/7 ff. B.C. we cannot go, be- 
cause Hermogenes and Timesianax, the two archons next extant 
in C.I.A. II, 975, must be assigned to 183/2 and 182/1 B.C. 
Between 200/199 ff. and 188/7 ff. B.C. we can make a choice 
with considerable certainty. Fragment a of C.I.A. II, 975 was 
at the head of a column, but that it headed col. II, where Koehler 
puts it, and did not stand directly over frg. b at the head of col. 
III, I do not see how from the fragments themselves anyone can 
affirm with certainty. From the tangencies of names which 
occur in the inscriptions of these archons we are able however to 
affirm the latter. For if it stood as Koehler puts it, then, inas- 
much as at least three years must in that case have intervened 
between Zopyros and 183/2 B.C., 198/7 and not 186/5 B.C. 
would have to be chosen for Zopyros. But for 186/5 B.C. the 
following name-connections speak emphatically: (1) The secre- 
tary of the orgeones in C.I.A. IV 2, 624 b (175/4 B.C.) had been 
appointed in Theoxenos’ year. A tenure of such an office for 24 
years would be unprecedented. (2) Demetrios, the son of 





'Only a small portion of the list is extant but the names of Mikion’s 
father and uncle should have immediately preceded his, had they been alive. 

2C.LA. II, 416, 417, 975; IV 2, 417 Ὁ, α. 

5 C.I.A. II, 975; IV 2, 624 Ὁ, 1. 6. 

*C.LA. II, 420, 975. 

5 C.I.A. II, 416; IV 2, 417 ας. 








56 The Athenian Archons. 


Kteson, of Probalinthos, who in Symmachos’ year moved C.I.A, 
IV 2, 417 Ὁ, also moved C.I.A. IT, 439 in 185/4 B.C. Moreover 
the two inscriptions dealt with Egyptian matters, and were 
worded almost identically, In 200/199 B.C. the Ptolemy, whose 
favor was sought through both decrees, was a boy of only eight 
or nine years. (3) One of the ἐπιμεληταὶ τῆς πομπῆς for Zopyros’ 
year' was ᾿Αλέξανδρος ᾿Αντιγόνου ᾿Οτρυνεύς who likewise appears 
among the leporoof in Lysiades’ year (166/5 B.C. ?).? Another 
of the hieropoioi in Lysiades’ year was ["I] wv ᾿Αμφιτροπῆθεν," who 
was likewise an epimeletes in Zopyros’ year. Obviously 186/5 
B.C. for Zopyros is none too late to meet the demands of these 
two names. Another of the hieropoioit was Kpdreppos Ῥαμνούσιος 
the son doubtless of the epimeletes for Zopyros’ year, ᾿Αθηνά[δ] ns 
Kparé[pujov ‘Papvovows. A great-grandson of the epimeletes is 
doubtless to be found in the [Kp] άτερμ <v> os ᾿Αθηνάδου ἹΡαμνούσιος 
of 105/4 B.C.° (4) Xenon, the son of Asklepiades, of Phyle, 
who made the motion in Zopyros’ year® must have been a com- 
paratively young man in 198/7 B.C. In 183/2 B.C. his two sons 
were still minors.’ Among the contributors in 183/2 B.C.° is 
found [M]evéuaxos ᾿Ανθεστηρίου ἐγ Μυρρινο[ vr |rns who was an epime- 
letes in Zopyros’ archonship. A son of Menemachos named An- 
thesterios was still vigorous in 138/7,B.C.° A grandson or grand- 
nephew of the epimeletes ᾿Αγαθοκλῆς Λυσιάδου Βερενικί δ]ης is to be 
seen in the ephebe — os Λυσιάδου Βερ(ε)νικίδης of 119/8 §.C. One 


1C.1A. II, 420; all the epimeletai for Zopyros’ year below mentioned 
come from this inscription. 


7C.LA. IT, 953, 1. 16; see below p. 62 ff. 

3C.1LA. IT, 953, 1. 28. 

*C.LA. II, 953, 1. 14. 

5C.1.A. II, 465, 1. 67. 

®C.I.A. II, 420; cf. p. 45. 

TC.LA. II, 983, col. I, 1. 98 ff. 

8 C.LA. II, 983, col. I, 1. 43. 

9 See below p. 71; cf. for a brother of Menemachos C.I.A. II, 952, 1. 8. 


WC.LA. II, 469, 1. 125; cf. C.I.A. I, 9§2, 1. 16 for the brother, and C.I.A. 
II, 1047, 1. 20 for the son or nephew, of Agathokles. 





186|5-185/4¢ Before Christ. 57 


of the epimeletai in C.I.A. IV 2, 952 Ὁ, 1. 12 (c. 125 B.C.)!' was 
Εὔβιος ‘Hpaxdvros Φυλά σι]ος, the son of Ἡρακῶν Εὐβίου Φυλάσιος the 
epimeletes for Zopyros’ year, 

$46. Eupolemos,’ 185/4 B.C. 


Demetrios, the son of Kteson, of Probalinthos, who made a 
motion in Eupolemos’ year,® performed a like function in 
Symmachos’ year (188/7 B.C.).* Simon, the son of Simon, of 
Poros, who was among the Dionysiastai in Eupolemos’ archon- 
ship,° made a motion in Hermogenes’ year (183/2 B.C.).*° Diony- 
sogenes, the son of Dionysios, of Paiania, one of the Dionysiastai 
just mentioned, was among the contributors in 183/2 B.C." 
Dionysios I, the son of Agathokles, of Marathon, who in Eupo- 
lemos’ year was priest of Dionysos, and had already been treas- 
urer to the Dionysiastai for several years, (πλείω ἔτη), αἰ was in 
that year specially commended for his services," made a contri- 
bution for himself and his two sons, Agathokles and Dionysios IT, 
in 183/2 B.C.° In Hippakos’ archonship (176/5 B.C.) he died 
and his son Agathokles succeeded” to his position as priest. 
Dionysios II won two running races in Phaidrias’ archonship 
(c. 150), and Agathokles’ son, Dionysios III, appears in C.I.A, 
II, 1047 (c. 125 B.C.). When Dionysios I died in 176/5 B.C., 





1 The date is determined by the fact that another of the « pimeletai was 
Σοφοκλῆς Anunrplov ᾿Ιφιστ[ιάδης} who was secretary in 104-3 B.C. Cf. fora 
nephew of Ηρακῶν C.I.A. II, 952, and for a grandnephew, C.I.A. IT, 985 C, 1. 
6. For the father of Τιμοκράτης Tiwoxpdrous Θορίκιος see C.I.A. II, 860, and 
for the brother see C.I.A. 11, 952. 

°C.LA. II, 439, 440; IV 2, 439 Ὁ, 623 ἃ; Sitzungsb. ἃ, k. Akad. d. 
Wissens, zu Wien, CX XIII (1890), VI, p. 86. In Eupolemos’ year Moschion, 
who in the list of Academic philosophers given by Suidas (5. v. Πλάτων) 
comes fourth after Lakydes and third before Karneades, died. This in 
itself almost excludes 197-6 B.C. 

C.I.A. II, 439. 

*C.1.A. IV 2, 417 Ὁ. 

5C.1.A. IV 2, 623 d. 

6.1.4. 11, 624. 

TC.LA II, 983, col. I, 1. 133. 

8C.LA. IV 2, 623 ἃ. 

®C.1.A. II, 983, col. III, 11, 87-90; cf. C.I.A. IV 2, 623 6, p. 170. 

WC.I.A. IV 2, 623 e. 









Se EES ST a 


243 






















at FSR © = soaks SSS ραν a 
ἰ 


«Ὡ“- 


58 The Athenian Archons. 


the Dionysiastai passed a memorial decree.’ This was moved 
by the man who had already succeeded to the treasuryship, 
Solon, the son of Hermogenes, of Cholargos. Solon was very 
prominent among the Dionysiastai in EKupolemos’ archonship.” 

The deme of the secretary allows us two possibilities, 197/6 and 
185/4 B.C. Of these the latter is certainly to be chosen ; for in 
the first place the decree passed in Eupolemos’ year in honor of 
Dionysios I is most probably the mark of his retirement from 
active service to the club, and this is more in accord with what a 
main who had but nine, than with what one who had still twenty- 
one, years to live would do. It seems to me impossible for 
twenty-one years to have intervened between the retirement of 
Dionysios and his death. Again Solon, a leading man in the 
club in Kupolemos’ year, and therefore probably past middle age, 
was still active and influential in 176/5 B.C. Obviously an interval 
of nine rather than one of twenty-one years suits these conditions. 
And finally the activity of Dionysios, Simon, and Dionysog-enes 
in Hermogenes’ year (183/2 B.C.), as well as in Eupolemos’ 
year, favors 185/4 rather than 197/6 B.C. for ihe latter. Deme- 
trios too, the mover of C.I.A. II, 430, was active in 188/7 B.C. 
All the evidence in fact unmistakably favors 185/4 B.C. 


ὃ 47. Hermogenes’ and Timesianax.‘ 183/2-182/1 B.C. 


These two archons follow Symmachos and his group and pre- 
cede Eunikos and Xenokles (169/8 and 168/7 B.C.). The secre- 
1C.LA. IV 2, 623 e. 


2C.1.A. IV 2, 623d. The stemma of the Dionysios family may be given : 
cf. Koehler, Mitth. IX (1884), p. 293. 


Deme= Marathon. Agathokles. 
is daa 
Agathokles. Dionysios. 
Dionysios. 


Agathokles (unknown). 


Phileto (C.I.A. 11, 956). 
3C.1.A, II, 624, 975, 983. {C.1.A. II, 432, 975. 








red 





176[5-175|4 Before Christ. 59 


tary for Timesianax’ archonship being from the tribe Attalis, 
within these limits only 183/2, 182/1 B.C. and 171/0, 170/69 B.C. 
are conceivable for him and his predecessor. Of these the latter 
pair must be rejected ; for between Timesianax and Eunikos there 
must have intervened at least one year.’ In this case the posi- 
tion’ of fragments b and c of C.I.A. II, 975 is positively de- 
cided upon by Koehler, and can hardly be questioned. I omit to 
give the tangencies of the many names found in C.I.A. II, 983: 
many of them are used in other connections. 


ἢ 48. Hippakos’ and Sonikos.‘ 176/5-175/4 B.C. 


Sonikos was archon while Eumenes II was king,® ὦ. e., between 
197 and 159 B.C. The secretary belonged to the tribe Oineis, 
which could have happened within this period only in 187/6, 
175/4, and 163/2 B.C. The immediate predecessor of Sonikos 
was Hippachos.° Hippachos must have come later than 183/2 
B.C. ; for Dionysios I, the son of Agathokles, of Marathon, who 
in 183/2 B.C. was alive,’ was dead in Hippachos’ year. ‘The 
sequence of Herimogenes and Sonikos in C.1.4. II, 624 proves 
the same thing. Therefore 187/6 B.C. must be thrown out. In 
163/2 B.C. Erastos was archon :* this year could not therefore 
have belonged to Sonikos. 175/4 B.C. alone remains. 


ἃ. 49. Achaios.® c. 173 B.C. 


The man who made the motion in the decree dated by Achaios 


7C.LA. II, 975, note on p. 403 ; sed equidem lapidibus saepius examinatis 
non dubito, quin duo fragmenta recte a me conjuncta sint. 

5 C.I.A. II, 624, 1. 24; IV 2, 623 6. 

*C.LA. II, 435, 624; IV 2, 435 Ὁ, 624 Ὁ. 

°C.LA. II, 435; Unger (Hermes, XIV (1879), p, 604 f.) objects to the 
omikron of C.I.A. II, 435, in the name Σώνικος, and proposes [᾿1]σόνικος in- 
stead. Koehler’s introductory remark explais¢ the error; cf. Mitth. IX 
{ 1884), p. 292, n. 2. 

®C.I.A. II, 624, 1. 24; ef. IV 2, 624. 

TC.LA. IV 2, 623 e, Koehler’s note on p. 170. 

8 See below Ὁ. 64 f. 

9C.LA. IT, 433. C.I.A. II, 985 E, 1. 23. 

































60 The Athenian Archons. 


one of the thesmothetai was ᾿Αρτεμίδωρος Βε[ρε]νικίδης, the son per- 
haps of Diochares. Our decree was passed during the reign of 
Kumenes II of Pergamon, ὦ, ¢., between 197 and 159 B.C. 
Schoeffer doubtfully assigns Achaios to the period 1g7-1 B.C. 
The secretary was Ἡρακλέων Nav --, which in no way aids us. Be- 
cause of the name connection above indicated I should prefer the 
vicinity of the lower limit for Achaios. 


ὃ 50. Tychandros' and De-.? 172/1-171/0 B.C. 


In C.I.A. II, 983, col. III, 1. 37 a contribution was made by 
some relative for [-- ᾿Αρ] τεμιδώρου "EXev(owlov). In Tychandros’ 
archonship this minor was an ephebe appearing in C.I.A. II, 1224 
as Ξενοκράτης ᾿Αρτεμιδώρου "EAevoivos. His uncle or cousin Hevo- 
Kparns Esvoxparov ᾿Ελευσίνιος was the mover of two decrees one in 
169/8 and the other in 165/4 B.C.° C.I.A. IT, 436 was passed on 
the 27th of Posideon in Tychandros’ vear. It ends as follows: 
[ἐπειδὴ ὁ δεῖνα οἰκ] εῖος dv τοῦ [β]ασιλέως Εἰὐμένου[ς ἐν τῷ ἔμπροσθεν 
χρόνῳ εὔνο] υς ὑπῆρ[ξε]ν καὶ παρεχόμενος χρείας κοινῇ τε τῷ δήμῳ καὶ κατ᾽ 
ἰδίαν τοῖς ἀφικνουμένοις τ[ῶν πολιτῶν εἰς Πέργαμον διετέλεσε, καὶ] ν[ῦν 
ΕἸ ὑ[μέ]ν[ους τὴν] ἀρχ[ὴν καταλιπόντος vel παραδόντος vel simile ali- 
quid. Unger,‘ objecting to the last phrase that it should 
have been καὶ viv ἐπὶ rod βασιλέως ᾿Αττάλου if Eumenes II 
were dead, suggested that re be imtroduced after ἐν and the 
sentence end with: καὶ v[tv Ε]ὑ[μέ]ν[ους τὴν] dpx [ny ἐπιτρέψαντος 
᾿Αττάλῳ οὐ Φιλεταίρῳ τῷ ἀδελφῷ κτλ. It is possible too that the ἀρχήν 
which need not have been the kingship, had been entrusted to the 
person honored in the decree. It seems to me that the phrase 
τοῦ [β]ασιλέως Εὐμένου [ς] in the absence of evidence to the con- 
trary, indicates that Eumenes was King at the time the decree was 
passed. The secretary was from the tribe Aiantis and this could 
have occurred only in 172/1 and 160/59 B.C. The latter date is. 


MO.LA. II, 436, 1224. 

7C.1.A. II, 1225. 

5A son of the ephebe for Tychandros’ year Νικοκράτης Zwtdhou Φλυεύς is the 
priest Zwthos Φλυεύς for 117-6 B.C. ; see Cornell Studies, VII, p. 46; cf. ᾿Αθήν. 
IV, p. 461. 
*Hermes, XIV (1879), p. 604 f. 





-Ὁ.ο---.-. 





169/8—168'7 Before Christ. 61 


about a year too early to admit of Koehler’s interpretation of the 
inscription just quoted. If the identification of the ephebe 
Ἐενοκράτης with the son of Artemidoros of 183/2 B. C. is correct 
then 172/1 B.C. must certainly be chosen; for an ephebe in 
160/59 B.C. could not have been born in 183/2 B.C. Finally it is 
all but certain that Aristaichmos was archon in 160/59 B.C.' 
Tychandros should therefore be assigned to 172/1 B.C. and his 
successor, De—, to the year following. 


§ 51. Eunikos’ and Xenokles.* 169/8-1638/7 B.C. 


C.L.A. II, 975 shows that Eunikos immediately preceded 
Xenokles. For Xenokles | repeat from Cornell Studies, VII 
(1898), p. 60 ἢ. ‘‘In the papyrus rolls from Herculaneum, Col. 
XXVIII (Phil. Suppl. II, 1863, p. 543, quoted by Dumont, Fastes 
Eponymiques d’ Athénes, p. 18), we read: ᾿Αγαμήστωρ δὲ μετὰ τὴν 
Περσέως [GA]wow Αἰ'ας vids ὧν Πολυξένου ἐπὶ Ἐενοκλέους τὴν ἀπόλυσιν 
τοῦ βίου ἐποιήσατους The battle of Pydna was fought on the 
Roman 4th of Sept., or onthe 22nd oi June of the Julian calendar, 
in the year 168 B.C. (Mommsen, History of Rome, Vol. II, p. 
355), and Perseus was captured a short time afterwards. This 
woula be in the Attic year 168/7 B.C., and surely the Greek 
quoted above means nothing, if not that Xenokles was archon in 
that year. The secretary for the year of Xenokles’ archonship 
was Σθενέδημος ᾿Ασκ(λ)ηπιάδου Τειθράσιος of the tribe Aigers (C.I.A. 
IV 2, 441 d.). According to the unbroken official order Aigezs 
should have the seeretaryship in 168/7 B.C.’’ In Xenokles’ 
archouship Kumenes II was on the th -of Pergamon.’ Since 
Xenokles necessarily followed Timesianax after an interval of one 
year or more, the only place possible for a secretary from Aigeis 
before the death of Eumenes is in 168/7 B.C. 


1 See below p. 65 ff. 
*C.1.A. II, 975; IV 2, 441 Ὁ, c. 
3C.LA. II, 975; IV 2, 441 d; Bicheler, Index Here. Acad. Phil. p. 17. 


* This date is determined by an eclipse of the sum 
5 See C.I.A. IV 2, 441 ἃ, 1. 8. 








62 The Athenian Archons. 


§ 52. Nikomenes.' 167/6 B.C. 


After ἐποιήσατο in Col. XXVIII of the Herculanean roll just 
quoted the narrative continues: éz[t] Nixo[pé]vous ὃ[έ -- --Ἰ᾿ Απολ- 


λω[ν -- --ἦρχε. Nikomenes probably occupied 167/6 B.C., the 


vacant year immediately after that of Xenokles. 

ὃ. 53. Lysiades.’ 166/5 B.C. ? 

We possess a list of the hieropoioi for the Romaia and Ptole- 
maia in Lysiades’ year.? Among them are: Two of the epimele- 
tai for Zopyros’ year (186/5 B.C.), [ἼΠων ᾿Αμφιτροπῆθεν and 
᾿Αλέξανδρος ’Orpuvevs, and the son of another Kpdreppos Ῥαμνούσιος, 
who is at the same time grandfather of Kpdrepp<v> os ᾿Αθηνάδου, an 


ephebe in 105/4 B.C.*; the sens of two of the contributors in 183/2 
B.C., Σέλευκος Δεκελεεύς and Ποσειδώνιος Λαμπτρεύϊς ]," the latter of 


whom is the grandfather perhaps of [...]ooOévys Hoced[w]viov 


Aaurr[pevs], an ephebe in τοι B.C.°; one of the contributors 
of c. 180 B.C., [Al]pi[Ba€]os Πειραιεύς" ; [N]ucoyévns Φιλαΐδης, the 
agonothetes of the Theseia in 161/0 BoC.“ and hipparch in 
158-5 B.C.°; [ΓΑν]θεστήριος ἐγ Μυρριν(ούττης), the son of a 
contributor in 183/2 B.C. and himself am ambassador from 
Delos to Athens in 160/59 and 1387 B.C."; [Π]αυσίλυπος 
Πειραιεύς, the father of the chairman of the proedroi in 118/7 
B.C." ; Ἑρμῶναξ Ἕρμειος, the father of a theoros in the latter half 
of the second century B.C." ; [Φ]ιλιππίδης Φλυεύς, the son of a con- 
tributor in c. 180 B.C."; [@]eddwpos Ῥαμνούσιος, the grandfather 


1 Bucheler, Index Herc. Acad. Phil. p. 17 f. 

2C.LA. II, 953; B.C.H. XVI (1892), p. 371 

3C.LA. II, 953. 

*C.LA. II, 465, 1. 67. 

5C.1.A. II, 983, col. I, 1. 23 amd 1. 35. 

66.1.4. II, 467, 1. r1g. 

*C.LA. II, 952, 1. 14; ef. II, 626 

SC.LA. IT, 444, 1. 2, 29, etc. ; his. son was 2 or 13 years old in this year, 
1. 52. 

9.01.4. IT, 445, 1. τ. 

10 See below p. 71 f. 

"NC.LA. I, 469, 1. 51. 

2 C.I.A. IT. 955, 1. 4. 

C.I.A. IT, 952, 1. 19. 


ioe is 


~ he iit AE RENT Senha Ser a SY ey TLIO GED SA EE EAE ον. --σ. ᾿ EBD τ τς 





Mune ane μοὶ, υρωχαυρῤοτο aN 


a eh Bas T A δῦ, 


167/6-166|5 Before Christ. 63 


perhaps of Θεόδωρ[ος] Θεομένου ῬΡαμνούσιος͵ an ephebe in 107/6 B.C.'; 
Μήδειος Πειραιεύς, the father of Μήδειος Μηδείου Πειραιεύς, archon in 
τοῖο B.C.’; ["A]pecros Μαραθώνιος, the father of the paidotribes of 
the same name for 105/4 B.C.?; Μένανδρος Πειραιεύς, the father of 
the thesmothetes of the same name for 100/99 B.C.‘ and grand- 
father perhaps of ᾿Απόληξις [Μενά]νδρου Πειραιεύς, an ephebe in 
105/4 B.C.°; ᾿Αρχικλῆς Λακιάδης, the same no doubt as the ᾿Αρχικλῆς 
᾿Αρχικλέους Λακιάδης who appears among the οἱ ἐπὶ τὰ ἱερά for Delos 
inc. 145 B.C.® 

In the list we find men whose ἀκμή was 185 B.C. as well as sons 
of these ; men who flourished in the neighborhood of 160 B.C. ; 
the fathers of men who were in their prime in 115 B.C. and the 
grandfathers of lads of between 18 and 20 in 105 B.C. This evi- 
dence points unmistakably to the neighborhood of 160 B.C. for 
Lysiades. 

In a Delian decree passed either in the last days of Arch- 
on’s year (139/8 B.C.) or in the beginning of that of Epikrates 
(1387 B.C.), the following sentence oceurs :7 ἀναγμάψαι δὲ τόδε τὸ 
ψήφισμα τὸν γραμματέα τοῦ ἐπιμελητοῦ Μνησίφιλον εἰς στήλην λιθίνην, καὶ 
στῆσαι ἀκολούθως τοῖς ἄρξασιν τὸν ἐπὶ Λυ [σ]ιάδου ἄρχοντος ἐνιαυτόν. ‘This 
indicates that Lysiades preceded Archon (139/8 B.C.) but came 
later than 166 B.C. : it does not indicate, as Doublet,* Homolle,® 
and Schoeffer” assume, that he was the direct predecessor of 
Archon, It furthermore indicates that in Lysiades’ year some 
regulation was made to govern the disposition of the decrees passed 
by the Athenian kleruchs in Delos. The most natural time for 








"CLA. II, 470, 1. 100, p. 270. 

?C.LA. II, 1047, 467, etc. ; see below p. 86f. 

3C.LA, II, 465, 1. 20. 

*C.LA. II, 985 A, 1. 12; it is less likely that the last two pairs were grand- 
fathers and grandsons, 

®C.LA. 465, 1. 96. 

°B.C.H. VII (1883), p. 338; see above p. 32. 

"B.C.H. XVI (1892), p. 371, 1. 31 ff, 

*B.C.H. XVI (1892), p. 373. 

*B.C.H. XVII (1893), p. 162. 

” Pauly-Wissowa, II, p. 591. 


ann ee 





sg pear te 


64 The Athenian Archons. 


such an enactment is unquestionably the period of the establish- ; 
ment of Athenian government in the island, 2.6., 166/5 B.C. I ἢ 
therefore, though with some diffidence, assign Lysiades to this a 
year. ¥ 


ὃ 54. Pelops.' 165/4 B.C. 


The Delian decree published in the Bulletin for 1889, p. 244 
shows that Pelops is posterior to 166 B.C., the year in which 
Athens got possession of the island. At the same time the com- 
parison Fougéres there makes between the decree just mentioned 
and one from Oropos, shows that the interval was not very great ; 4 
for ᾿Αμφικλῆς Φιλοξένου, who even before 166 B.C. had had an 4 
international reputation as a rlapsodist, was still starring in | 
Pelops’ year.” In Eunikos’ archonship (169/8 B.C.) the mover ‘ 





of a decree was Ξενοκράτης Hevoxpdrov ᾿Ελευσίνιος. ἢ In Pelops’ 





archonship the same individual performed a like function.* The P 
secretary was Διονυσικλῆς Διονυσίου Ἑκαλῆθεν of the tribe Ptolemais. 4 
The two years which might be taken into consideration are 165/4 : 
and 153/2 B.C., but all the evidence is in favor of the earlier of lg 
these. \e 


$55. Euerg-—,° Erastos,®° Poseidonios,' and Aristolas.* ᾧ 
164/3-161/o B.C. 





The secretary for Aristolas’ archonship was from the tribe 
Hippothontis. From C.I.A. II, 975 we learn that the four 





archons now to be dated came in a bunch in the order given and 
followed Xenokles at no very great distance. Hippothontis had 
the secretaryship in 161/o and 149/8 B.C. Apart from the fact 
that, if the latter year werechosen, Averg -- and Hagnotheos would 
clash in 152/1 B.C.,° it seems to me from C.I.A. II, 975 impos- 





"ΤΑ. II Add. Nov. 477 b; IV 2, 477 ¢; B.C.H. XIII (1889), p. 244 f. ιβ 
2B.C.H. XIII (1889), p. 248 f. 

3C.T.A. IV 2, 441 b. 

*C.1.A. IV 2, 477 ¢, 1. 30. 

5.1.4. II, 975. 

6C.1.A. II, 975. 

7C.LA. II, 975, 1200; B.C.H. IV (1880), p. 183. 

80 1.Α. II, 444, 975; B.C.H. IV (1880), p. 184; Mitth. XXI (1896). Ὁ. 434. 
9 See below p. 68. 


i 
ra 
ie 
; 








434. 








160/59 and 136/5 Before Christ. 65 


sible for sixteen years to have intervened between Xenokles and 
Euerg -. By the Delian accounts published in B.C.H. IV (1880), 
p. 183f., it is shown that Poseidonios came within the nine years 
following 166/5 B.C. ; for a loan made before the Athenian occu- 
pation of Delos, and which was payable at the outside within ten 
years, became due in Poseidonios’ archonship.'. Indeed Homolle 
has assigned Alkimachos, the Delian archon in whose year the 
loan was made, to the year 169 B.C.? Hence the very latest pos- 
sible year for Posgidonios is 15y B.C. For this group therefore 
the years 164/3 ff. B.C. are certainly to be assigned. 

§ 56. Aristaichmos* and Nikomachos.' 160/59 and _ 136/5 
B.C. 

These two archon names occur in Philodemos’ life of the Aca- 
demic philosopher Philon: Φίλων δὲ διαδεξά [με] vos Κλει[τό] wax [ov] 
ἐγενν[ἡ] On μὲν ἐπ᾽ ᾿Αρισταίχμο[υ, π]αρεγένε [το] δ᾽ εἰς [᾿Αθήν]ας [ze] pl 
τέ[τ] τα[ρα κ]αὶ ε[[κ] οσίν [που] ἔχων ἔτη] κατὰ Νικόμαχ[ον], ἐσχολακὼς 
[ἐν] τῇ πατρίδι Καλλ[ι] κλεῖ τῷ Καρ[ν] εάδου [yyw] piu περὶ ὀκ[ τὼ καὶ δέκ 


ἔτη" Κλ[ει]τομά[χῳ δὲ δέκα [κ]αὶ τ[ἐτ] ταρ[α] (ἐσχόλασεν) -- -- -- ᾿Απ- 
ολλοδώ]ρῳ δὲ -- -- -- Στωικῷ -- -- [ἤρ]ξατο δ᾽ ἡγεῖσθαι τῆς σχο] λῆς 
ρῳ ΐ itp γ x 
[é]m[t Πο]λυκ[λ] [του βιώσ]ας δ᾽ ἐ[...7 κοντ᾽ " ἔτ [ἡ καὶ -- -- --, 


The accession of Philon to the head of the school being fixed 
in 110/09 B.C.,' the link missing in the account of his life is the 
number of years he spent with Apollodoros. This much is cer- 
tain that at least fourteen years intervened between Polykleitos 
and Nikomachos. Since that is so, there must have intervened 
at least twenty-three, since there is no place for Nikomachos be- 
tween 124/3 and 133/2 B.C." Consequently the least possible 

1B.C.H. IV (1880), p. 184 f, 

7 B.C.H. X (1886), p. 7. 

3C.1.G. 2270; Biicheler, Index Here. Acad. Phil. p. 19. 

4 Biicheler, 1. c. 

5 B.C.H. XVII (1893), p. 149. 

δ Biicheler thinks that the number of spaces in the papyrus renders 
ἑβδομήκοντα impossible here. The fac-simile printed by Homolle (B.C.H. 
XVII (1893), p. 149, n. 2) does not bear him out. Indeed I fancy I can see 
the hasta of a Beta reproduced there. ‘ESdoujxovra seems necessary. 

7 See below p. 84 f. 

8 See below p. 73 ff. 


5 








66 The Athenian Archons. 


number of years Philon could have studied with Apollodoros is 
nine. On the other hand he cannot have studied with the Stoic 
for more than thirteen, since in that event Aristaichmos, who 
comes within a short interval after 166 B.C. but certainly not in 
165/4 B.C., could find no place, there being no vacancy in the 
archon list between 164/3 and 161/o B.C. iNow the number of 
years spent by Philon under Apollodoros is extant 11 Philodemos 
as follows: de. δυο, w: devra «ὧι, for which Biicheler suggests,’ 
but does not print, δ᾽ ἔτι] δύο [τῷ ἐπιτη] 8e[10] τάτῳ Στωικῷ κτλ, See- 
ing that δύο is certain, there can be no doubt that a δέκα accom- 
paniedit. The passage must therefore be restored in some such way 
asthis: ᾿Απ[ολλοδώ]ρῳ δ᾽ ἔ[τι] δύο [καὶ] δέ[κ]α [τ] ᾧ Στωικῷ κτλ, This 
fixes the archonship of Nikomachos in 136/5 B.C. and that of 
Aristaichmos in 160/59 B.C., since the που and xara of the passage 
quoted, though they indicate that the writer was uncertain of the 
age of Philon when he came to Athens, do not indicate that the 
number of years between Aristaichmos and Nikomachos was more 
or less than twenty-four. The Delian inscription of Aristaichmos’ 
archonship, published as no. 2270 of C.1I.G., supports the date 
160/59 B.C. ἃ merveille. For we find that Eubulos, the son of 
Demetrios, of Marathon,’ after having been the first as ἀρχιθέωρος 
to get for the kleruchs at Delos the public award in the theatre at 
Athens of a gold crown won at the Panathenaia, had before Ari- 
staichmos’ year, in which he was priest of Dionysios, been twice 
elected priest of the Great Deities, and once priest of Asklepios. 
Inasmuch as the priestships probably fell to him in four consecu- 
tive years, the first victory gained at the Panathenaia by the 
kleruchs after their settlement on Delos in 166 B.C., in all likeli- 
hood was won in either 165/4 or 164/3 B.C. 

The life of Philon adjusts itself as follows: He was born at 
Larissa in 160/59 B.C. and studied there with Kallikles, a disciple 
of Karneades, for 18? years. In 136/5 B.C. or thereabouts he 
came to Athens, and studied with Kleitomachos until 122/1 B.C., 





1 Index Herc. Acad. Phil. col. XXXIII, note on 1. 13. 
3 Demetrios of Marathon, the priest of Serapis for 124-3 B.C., was a son of 
Eubulos; cf. B.C.H. VI (1882), p. 333. 











peer as 


TERR eS CS ΒΒ 


See cuats 


δόξαν 


Pe 
yf 
ἢ 

δ 


a ΤΣ ΞΣΙΞΣΣΣΖΑ 





158/7-153/2 Before Christ. 67 


and then for twelve years longer with Apollodoros the Stoic. In 
110/09 B.C, he succeeded Kleitomachos as head of the Academy, 
In 88 B.C. he went to Rome and died there some time before 
80 B.C. 


$57. Anthesterios,' Kallistratos,?and Mnesitheos.' 1 587-- 
153/2 B.C. 


There is no clear indication of the interval between Aristolas 
(τότ B.C.) and Anthesterios to be found in C.I.A. IT, 975. 
It is, however, either more than one year or none at all, since in 
no case did the comic exhibitions take place in two successive 
years, whereas in Aristolas’ year and in that immediately preced- 
ing Anthesterios they did take place. The extent of the interval 
may be determined by means of C.I.A. II, 444 (Aristolas) and 
445 (Anthesterios). In the former, lines 71 f. of col. II read as 
follows: παῖδας παγκράτιον τῆς δευτέρα[ς] ἡλ[ικίας7"' "A Bpwv Καλλίου 
[O]iv[e]idos φυλῆς. In the latter, line rr of col. II runs: παῖδας ἐκ 
πάν των πυ]γμήν' “AB[p]wv KaA(A)lov ᾿Αθηναῖος, This allows at the 
outside only four free years to intervene between Aristolas and 
Anthesterios, and so the group must come between 161/o and 
Hagnotheos’ year (152/1 B.C.). Aristaichmos belongs to 160/59 
B.C. Anthesterios for the reason given above cannot have come 
iz 159/8 B.C. 1587, 157/6, and 156/5 alone remain. In one of 
these Anthesterios was archon, 


$58. Phaidrias.’ 1532, 151/o, or 150/49 B.C. 


To this archonship belongs a list of the victors at the Theseia 
disposed according to the classes in which each competed. In 
the torch-race open to of ἕνοι ἔφηβοι, and in the wrestling match 
open to παῖδες ἐκ πάντων, Εὐαρχίδας ᾿Ανδρέου of the tribe Antiochis 


‘CLA. ΤΙ, 445, 975; B.C.H. III (1879), p. 313; ibid. IV (1880), p. 185 f. 

7C.LA. II, 954?, 975; B.C.H. IV (1880), p. 186. 

3C.LA. I, 975. 

*Rangabé (Ant. hell. II, 678 ff.) calculates that παῖδες τῆς πρώτης ἡλικίας 
were from 12 to 14 years old; παῖδες τῆς δευτέρας ἡλικίπις from 14 to 16, and 
παῖδες τῆς τρίτης ἡλικίας from 16 to 20, 

°C.LA. HI, 446; C.1.G, 2271 = Foucart, Assoc. Relig. chez les Grecs, p. 
223. 








68 The Athentan Archons. 


won,’ This same individual was victor, in Anthesterios’ arch on- 
ship, in the wrestling match open to παῖδες τῆς πρώτης ἡλικίας." 
According as Euarchidas was in his twelfth or thirteenth year in 
Anthesterios’ archonship, seeing that he was in his eighteenth 
when Phaidrias was archon, four or five free years intervene be- 
tween these two archons. Two other names occurring in the 
lists of both years corroborate the evidence already presented, In 
Phaidrias’ year the winner of the event described as τῆς τρίτης 
ἡλικίας ἐν [dom] δίῳ καὶ S[dparc] was Εὔδοξος Εὐδόξου of the tribe 
Hippothontis, who in Anthesterios’ year was the winner in the 
competition defined as [érAouaxdv ἐ]ν [θυρε] ᾧ, and open to παῖδες 
τῆς πρώτης ἡλικίας. ‘Che winner of the boxing match open to 
παῖδες ἐκ πάντων in Phaidrias’ archonship was Μνησίθεος Μνησιθέου 
of the tribe Oineis, who in Anthesterios’ year won the same 
event when open to παῖδες τῆς πρώτης ἡλικίας.' From this evidence 
itis seen that 153/2, 151/0o, and 150/49 B.C. are the only years 
possible for Phaidrias. 


$59. Hagnotheos.*® 152/1 B.C. 

The secretary being from the tribe Akamantis, the only place 
possible for Hagnotheos is 152/1 B.C.° ‘This is shown by the fol- 
lowing quotation from Philodemos: Ἦλθε δ᾽ (Κλειτόμαχος) εἰς 
᾿Α]θήνα[ς ἐτ] ὧν rer[r]dp[w]v πρὸς εἴ[κο]σι γε[γονὼ]ς, [μ] τὰ δὲ 
τέ[τ]ταρα σχολάζειν ἤρξατο [Καρνεάδ[ῃ ] καὶ σ[υγ] γενόμ [ε] νος ἕν [κ]αὶ 
δέκ᾽ αὐτῷ σχ[ολ]ὴν idiav ἐπὶ Παλλαδί [ῳ σ]υνε[στ] ἤσατο ἄρχον [τος 
Ay] vo[@] ἐου καὶ συνέσχεν --. ‘The death of Kleitomachos occurred in 
Polykleitos’ archonship (110/oy B.C.)." The life of Kleitomachos 
may now be written. He was born at Carthage in rg1/o B.C., came 
to Athens in 167/6 B.C., and four years later in 163/2 B.C. began to 
study philosophy under Karneades. In 152,1 B.C. he founded a 





ὁ 


16.1.4. II, 446, 1. 64 and 1. 43. 

2C.LA. II, 445, 1. 61. 

SC.LA. II, 446, 1. 76; 445, 1. 25. 

(1.4. II, 446, 1. 533 445, 1. 5. 

5 C.I.A. II, 458; IV 2, 458 b, c; Biicheler, Index Herc. Acad. Phil. p. 15. 
6 140-39 B.C. is almost certainly occupied by Antitheos, 

7 See above p. 65 and below p. 84f. 


RET ASPET ROR I APES Me SR a 


ππασειτι το 








irs 





{ 


eer ea 


C. 145 Before Christ. 69 


school of his own in the Palladion.' ‘Chere he continued to teach 
for twenty-three years, but im 129/8 B.C. joined the Academy 
with many pupils. ’I‘wo years later he succeeded Krates of ‘ar. 
sos as head, and continued head until his death ia rro ‘og B.C, 


ἃ 60, Zaleukos.’ c. 145 B.C. 


The date of Zaleukos can only be approximated. In his 
archonship the ἀγορανόμοι at Delos were SipayBos Ἡραΐππου "Eppeos, 
Σωτάδης Bwrddov Αἰγιλιεύς, and Topyias ᾿Ασκληπιάδου ᾿Ιωνίδης, By 
Serambos Zaleukos is connected with Anthesterios (1§8-5 B.C.),° 
by Sotades with the archon Xenon (c, 135 B.C.)* and indirectly 
With Staseas priest of Serapis in 118/7 B.C., and by Gorgias with 
Kpikrates (138/7 B.C.).° Zaleukos would therefore seem to have 
been archon somewhere between 150 and 140 B.C. 

$61, Philon.’ ον, 145 B.C. 


The taugencies of Σίμων Πόριος, one of the epimeletai of a re- 
ligiows association in Philon’s year, help us in determining the 
date of this archon, A Simon, son of Simon, of Poros was prom- 
inent-among the Dionysiastai in Kupolemos’ year ( 185/4 B.C.),' 
and in Hermogenes’ year (183/2 B.C.), made a motion before a 
similar religious association.” Homolle, identifying Philon with 
Φίλων T[.... ἐκ KoA} wvot, the epimeletes of Delos for 35/4 B.C., 
assigus to him a year somewhere between 150 and 146 B.C.° 


"ΟΥ̓ him Cicero (Tuse. Disp, ΠῚ, 22) says: Legimus librum Clitomachi, 
quem ille eversa Carthagine mis’ consolandi causa ad captivos cives suos. 
Dumont (Fastes Eporv. p. 2° dk this to show that in 146 B.C. Kleito- 
machos had already op. . liv own school, while Biicheler, Homolle, and 
Schoeffer thought it uceessarily proved only that he had come to Athens 
before that year. The view which transcended the strict inferences the 
facts warranted has sens correct. 

*B.C.H. X (1886), Ὁ. 33; XIII (1889), p. 409 f. 

4 B.C.H. III (1899), p. 3 

*B.C.H. XV (1891), p. 252; see below ἢ. 73. 

5B.C.H. XIII (1839), p. 41 

® C.I.A. I, 621. 

TC.LA. IV 2, 623 ἢ. 

*C.LA. II, 624, 

°B.C.H. XVI (1892), Ὁ. 481; XVII (1893), p. 164. 











70 The Athenian Archons. 


Schoeffer ascribes him to the period 154-48 B.C. ‘Taking the 
Simon of Philon’s year as a son of the Simon of 185/4 and 183/2 
B.C., I think the archonship of Philon may be set down to some 
year between 150 and 140 B.C. 


$62. Antitheos.' 140/39 B.C. 


After telling us the story of the capture of Corinth and of the 
subsequent settlement of Greece effected by the Romans, 
Pausanias says: Ὁ δὲ πόλεμος ἔσχεν οὗτος τέλος ᾿Αντιθέου μὲν ᾿Αθήνῃσιν 
ἄρχοντος, ὀλυμπιάδι δὲ ἑξηκοστῇ πρὸς ταῖς ἑκατόν, ἣν ἐνίκα Διόδωρος 
Σικυώνιος, From this it seems to me impossible to ascribe Anti- 
theos to any year but 140/39 B.C. Pausanias evidently followed 
the tradition in regard to the capture of Corinth which Appian’ 
seems to have preferred, who in his Διβυκή states that that event 
happened ἀμφὶ τὰς ἑξήκοντα καὶ ἑκατὸν ὀλυμπιάδας, 

§ 63. Archon’ and Epikrates.' 139/8-138/7 B.C. 

An inscription published in the Bulletin for 1892° shows that 
Archon preceded Epikrates immediately. The secretary for the 
latter year was from the tribe Kekropis. In Epikrates’ year a 
decree of the Athenian kleruchs at Delos in honor of Γοργίας 
᾿Ασκληπιάδου ᾿Ιωνίδης was ratified by the Demos at Athens.° 
Gorgias had as colleague in the dyopavouéa at Delos in Zaleukos’ 
archonship Σήραμβος Ἡραΐππου Ἕρμειος and Swrddns Σωτάδου Αἰγι- 
λιεύς Serambos leased a workshop from the Delian sacred 
domain in Anthesterios’ archonship (158-5 B.C.)." Sotades had 








1 Paus. VII, 16, ro. 

2p. 135; cf. Scaliger, ed. Scheibel, Ὁ. 155, n. 1218 and Ὁ. 157, n. 1230 ἔ, 
Homolle is alone in ascribing Antitheos to the year in which Corinth was 
actually captured, 146-5 B.C. (B.C.H. XVII (1893), p. 162). 

3C.LA. IV 2, 421; B.C.H. XIII (1889), p. 420 ff. p. 426; XVI (1892), 
p. 369 ff. 

*B.C.H. XIII (1889), p. 413 ff. ; XVI (1892), p. 369 ff.; Arch. Zeit. XVIII 
(1860), Anzeiger, p. 10g. 

5. 372. 

®B.C.H. XIII (1889), p. 415. 

7B.C.H. X (1886), p. 33; XIII (1889), p. 410. 

* B.C.H. III (1879), p. 313. 








Ϊ 
| 
{ 
Ϊ 
᾿ 
| 
| 





Taking the 
4 and 183/2 
wil to some 


and of the 

Romans, 
ἐν ᾿Αθήνῃσιν 
α Διόδωρος 
ribe Anti- 
y followed 
h Appian? 
that event 


lows that 
ry for the 
es’ yeara 
γῇ Γοργίας 

Athens,°® 
Zaleukos’ 
ddov Aly- 
in sacred 
tades had 


n. 1230 f, 
rinth was 


VI (1892), 


eit. XVIII 


139/S8-138/7 Before Christ. 71 


as colleague, when paidotribes in Xenon’s archonship (c. 135 
B.C.),' Στασέας Κολωνῆθεν, who was priest of Serapis in 1187 
B.C.’ Philokles, a son of Staseas, was a παῖς in Xenon’s archon- 
ship or a few years earlier.’ Another youth enrolled under 
Staseas in the same year as Philokles was Διοκλῆς Διοκλέους, whose 
father perhaps is the priest of Serapis for 122/1 B.C.‘ Besides 
Philokles, Staseas had a son named Σαραπίων, who became priest of 
Zeus Kynthios and Athena Kynthia in Prokles’ archonship (99/8 
B.C.).° The man who in Epikrates’ year moved that the honors 
to Gorgias be ratified by the Athenian demos, was Περιγένης 
Θαλησιγένου Τρι[κορύσιος7." Perigenes performed a like function in 
the case of the Delian agoranomoi for Archon’s archonship.’. In 
Ergokles’ year (132/1 B.C.) he was the chairman of the board of 
proedroi when another Delian matter was under discussion.’ 

In Zopyros’ archonship (186/5 B.C.) one of the epimeletai 
commended for their services was [M]evéuaxos ᾿Ανθεστηρίου ἐγ 
Mvppwo[vr]rys.° In Aristaichmos’ archonship (160/59 B.C.) 
and in Epikrates’ archonship" the most prominent among the 
ambassadors from Delos to Athens was ᾿Ανθεστήριος ἐγ Muppwotrrys. 
In Lysiades’ archonship (166/5 B.C.?) among the hieropoioi for 
the Ptolemaia the same person is mentioned.” The treasurer for 
Archon’s year, Nikodemos," is known to have been from the deme 


Hamaxanteia.'' Among the ephebes for 123/2 B.C. was 


'B.C.H. XV (1891), p. 252. 

* Cornell Studies, VII (1898), p. 46. 

3B.C.H. XV (1891), p. 257 f. 

*B.C.H. XV (1891), p. 257 f.; cf. Cornell Studies, VIT (1898), p. 46. 

δ᾽Αθήν. II, p. 132; Lebégue, Rech. sur Délos, p. 156 quoted in B.C.H. 
XIII (1889), p. 412, π. 3. 

6 B.C.H. XIII (1889), p. 415. 

™B.C.H. XVI (1892), p. 372. 

5B.C.H. XVI (1892), p. 376. 

96.1.4. 11, 420. 

C.1.G. 2270. 

"B.C.H. XVI (1892), p. 371 f. 

12 1.4. II, 953. 

15 B.C.H. XIII (1889), p. 421 f. 

4 B.C.H. XIII (1886), p. 430. 





72 The Athenian Archons. 


Δημήτριος Νικοδήμου ᾿Αμαξαντε[ύς} a son of the treasurer doubtless.' 
Homolle identifies Nikodemos with the archon for 122/1 B.C. 
In 183/2 B.C. a man named Menedemos of Kydathenaion made a 
contribution for his boy Archon.’ Menedemos likewise appears in 
the much-cited inscription C.I.A. II, 1047 (c. 125 B.C.?). Homolle 
identifies this Archon with the eponymous magistrate of the same 
name.’ Ir “haidrias’ archonship (c. 150 B.C.) the agonothetes 
for the TMheseia was Μιλτιάδης Ζωΐλου Μαραθώνιος,' who in Archon’s 
year had some expensive duties in connection with the σιτωνικά to 
perform, in Theaitetos’ year had some similar burdens, and in 
the year probably in which [-- -- B]ovradys was secretary was 
agonothetes for the Panathenaia.? In some year shortly before 
that of Archon he had been agonothetes for the Dionysia. 

The secretary allows for Epikrates 150/49 and 138/7 B.C. The 
mass of the evidence favors the latter. For the decree in honor 
of Gorgias was probably passed later than the year in which he 
was agoranomos. Staseas, the contemporary of Sotades who was 
colleague of Gorgias in the agoranomia, could hardly have been 
matured earlier than 150/49 B.C., seeing that he was priest thirty- 
two years later. From the chronology of his sons his prime 
would seem to fall in the neighborhood of 135 B.C. Serambos 
was a young man beginning business in 158-5 B.C. Perigenes 
connects Epikrates closely with the year 132/1 B.C. The tan- 
gencies of Anthesterios favor the earlier date, but do not exclude 
the later. The family relations of Anthesterios no doubt made 
him a persona grata with the demos at Athens. Hence his selec- 
tion as ambassador when in his prime in 160/59 B.C., and again 
twenty-two years afterwards. Nikoemos wasin his prime in the 
neighborhood of 130 B.C. imiltiades could hardly have had three 
expensive agonothesiai to perform in the short period of about ten 
years, 


'C.LA. II, 471, col. IV, 1. 116. 
ΤΑ, II, 983, col. I, 1. 55. 

3 B.C.H. XVII (1893), p. 162, n. 7. 
*C.LA. IT, 446. 

5C.LA. II, 421; IV 2, 421, 


Sa ee 











137|6-134/3 Before Christ. 73 


3S. ὃ 64. Theaitetos.' 137/6 B.C. ? 

C. Theaitetos came later than Archon (139/8 B.C.)’ and earlier 

“Ἔ than 129/8 B.C. ‘The latter year is determined by the fact that 

ee the inscription in which Theaitetos is mentioned was passed in 

) . ° , ‘ ’ 

lle the year in which [-- -- Bjovradys was secretary." Theaitetos there- 

ine : ὍΝ ; ᾿ 

; fore was archon in one of the years 137/6, 135/4, and 134/3 B.C, 

5 137/6 B.C. is the most probable of the three, bezause of the close 

J 

ἼΩΝ connection of Theaitetos and Archon indicated in C.I.A. IV 2, 

το 421. 

in is ἢ 

ἀγὼ $65. Xenon.’ 135/4 B.C. ? 

sre There can be no doubt that Homolle’ is right in identifying the 
archon Xenon with Xenon, the son of Asklepiades, of Phyle, 

‘he epimeletes of Delos in 118/7 B.C." Asklepiades, the father of 

ior Xenon, was born some years before 183/2 B.C." Sotades, the 

he agoranomos of Zaleukos’ year,” was paidotribes in Xenon’s year,” 

as and Staseas, the paidotribes of Xenon’s year," was priest of Serapis 

en in 118/7 B.C." The most probable location for Xenon, therefore, 

ty- seems to be some year in the neighborhood of 135 B.C. 

ne $66. Timarchos,” 134/3 B.C. 

ὋΝ On the basis of an inscription not yet published Colin" an- 

ἘΞ nounces that Timarchos coincides with the Delphian archon 

atl Τιμόκριτος Εὐκλείδα, who, belonging to the ninth priestship, held 

ide a SS See ee «ὕω. 0 0 0 ee 0 .. .... on --0 8 oe ee ome + -« 

ide ΤΑ. I, 421} 1Ν 2, 421. 

eC- 7C.LA. IV 2, 421, lines 35 and 36. 

ain *The union of fragment a of C.I.A. II, 421 with the beginning of fraginent 

| Ὁ is not affected by the re-arrangement of the inscription made in C.I.A. 

he IV 2, 421. 

ree *B.C.H. XV (1891), p. 252 ff. 

en °B.C.H. XVII (1893), p. 164. 


°B.C.H. III (1879), p. 370 f.; VI (1882), p. 320; see above p. 46. 
TC.LA. II, 983, col. I, 1. ror f. 

®B.C.H. XIII (1889), p. 499 f. 

°B.C.H. XV (1891), p. 252 ff. ; cf. XEX (1895), p. 511. 

B.C.H. XV (1891), p. 252 ff. 

" Cornell Studies, VII (1898), p. 46. 

MOLA. IT Add. 453 b. 

’B.C.H. XXII (1898), p. 147 f, 





-πττπτ-ςτττττ 
<a ee 











74 The Athenian Archons. 


office a little before 130 B.C. We may therefore place Timarchos 
in the interval between 137/6 and 134/3 B.C. and perhaps in the 
last year of the period. 


8 67. Metrophanes,' Ergokles,’ and Epikles.® 133/2-131/o 
B.C. 


That Ergokles directly precedes Epikles is shown by C.I.A. II, 
594, and that Metrophanes was the immediate predecessor of 
Ergokles is made practically certain by an inscription published 
in the Bulletin.‘ The secretary for Metrophanes year was from 
the tribe Frechtheis. 

In the Herculanean list of the Academic philosophers Epikles 
figures in connection with the death of Karneades I, son of Pole- 
marchos, the namesake and contemporary of the famous son of 
Epikomos or Philokomos. In the same connection the following 
statement is made:° Κλ[ειτόμαχ]ος eis ᾿Ακαδημί [av] ἐπέβαλεν pera 
πολλ[ῶν γ]νωρίμω[ν] -- πρότερον yap ἐσχόλαζο[ν ἐν] Πα[λλ]7]αδ[(ῳ] -- 
μετὰ τὴν Καρν[εάδ]ου [τε]λευ[τ]ήν Now it was two years after 
the death of Karneades I that Kleitomachos came to the Academy 
as is shown by the following passage quoted by Philodemos from 
Apollodoros :‘ Παρὰ [Kap] veddov 8[ ἐ] τοῦ Πολεμάρχου τὸν βίο[ν] ἐπ᾽ 
᾿Επικλέους [ἄρ] χοντο[ς] ἐγλελο[ιπό]τος [Κρ)άτης ὁ Τ[α]ρσεὺς τ[ὴ]ν 
[σ] χολὴν δ[ιε] δέξατο: τούτου δὲ δύ᾽ ἔτ [ἡ] διακατασχόντος μόνον Κλει- 
τόμα[χ]ος ἐν [τῷ] [Π7]αλλαδίῳ [σ] χο[ζλ]7ὴν -- -- εἰς τὴν ᾽Α [καδ] ημ[ αν 
μ] ετῆλ [0] γνωρίμων πολλῶν μέτα]. Or as Philodemos puts it him- 
self : ἢ [Καρ]νεάδ[η] ν διαδεξάμ [ενο] ς ἡγήσατο δ] ὑ᾽ ἔτη, κατ[ ἐστρ]εψ ε] δὲ 


'C.LA. II, 408; B.C.H. XIIT (1889), p. 250; XVI (1892), p. 374 ff 

®C.I.A. II, 594; B.C.H. XVI (1892), p. 376. 

5C.I.A. IT, 459, 594; Biicheler, Index Herc. Acad. Phil. pp. 16 and 18. 

*B.C.H. XVI (1892), p. 376. 

5 Biicheler, Index Here. Acad. Phil. p. 15. 

ὁ There is no trace of another line here, though Biicheler, to get over the 
difficulty this statement caused him, was inclined to think that one must 
have fallen out; see Phil. Suppl. II (1863), p. 541. 

TBich. lic. p. 18 and Sitzungsh. d. k. Akad. d. Wissens. zu Wien, 
CXXIII (1890), VI, p. 84; see Gomperz, Jenaer Literaturzeitung (1875), p. 
603; Rohde, Rhein. Mus, XX XIII (i878), p. 622 ἔν ἢ Gomperz, Sitzungsb. 
lic. p. 83. 

δ᾽ Bich. l. c. p. 16. 





δὲ 
= 
234 
᾿ 
Ἷ 
Bs 
ἧς 
ἢ 
5 
". 
ik 








a Ἐάν: ἀν φν 
eae 





mete ΤΠ 






2 





ἐπανβυξββη: 





chos 
the 


ikles 
-ole- 
n of 
ving 
μετὰ 
9] - 
after 
emy 
‘rom 
] ἐπ᾽ 
fay 
Κλει- 
“[ν 
him- 
e] δὲ 


r the 
must 


Wien, 


.}» Ῥ' 
igsb. 


= 
Ἵ 
ve 
i 
Γ᾿ 








2 Ae ea eee tc ὙΣ Π ον τ τε 


es 





ei a 


gaz! 


PSAs aes 





133/2-131/0 Before Christ. 75 


[πικ]λέου [5] dpxo[vro]s, «[ar] ἐλι[πε]ν δὲ διάδο[χ]ον τὸν συσ[χ]ο- 
λαστὴ [ν] Κράτητα Ταρσ[ἐ7α τὸ γέν[ος, ἡ] ήσατο δ᾽ [οὗτος] ἔτη τέτταρα. 
Therefore it must have been at the time of the death οἵ Karneades 
II, the son of Epikomos or Philokomos, that Kleitomachios entered 
the Academy. This event Apollodoros, as quoted by Diogenes 
Laertius,' assigned to the year 129/8 B.C. T'wo years before in 
131/0 B.C, Karneades I died and Epikles was archon. ‘The sec- 
retary for Metrophanes’ year being from Erechtheis, 131/o B.C. is 
the year demanded for Epikles by the official order also, 

How it came about that Karneades II resigned the headship of 
the school four years before his death, it is futile to enquire. His 
act was not without a precedent in the history of the Academic 
school ; for Lakydes had done the same thing before him.’ The 
blindness of Karneades must in any case have incapacitated him 
for work." Diogenes Laertius omitted to mention the resignation 
of Karneades II because of its approximate coincidence with his 
death. The fact that Kleitomachos came to the Academy at the 
time that event happened explains why the same writer, neglect- 
ing Karneades I and Krates of T'arsos, who were heads of the 
school from 133/2 to 131/0, and from 131/o to 127/6 B.C. respec- 
tively, states bluntly‘ that Kleitomachos was the successor of 
Karneades II. Kleitomachus may indeed have been joint head of 
the school from 129/8 to 127/6 B.C. just as Kuandros and Telekles 
were associated after the death of Lakydes.° 

The following name connections support the general location of 
this group: The mover of a decree in Metrophanes’ year,° 
Διόφαντος ‘Exeraiov “Eppeios, was one of those appointed to the charge 
of the sacred monies and other revenues of the temple at Delos for 
Kallistratos’ archonship’ (157-4 B.C.). One of the ambassadors 


'IV, 65. 

* See above p. 50 f. 

’Smith, Dict. of Biog. s.v. Carneades, 
*1V, 67; διεδέξατο τὸν Kapveddnv. 

5 Diog. Laert. IV, 60. 

®B.C.H. XIII (1889), p. 250. 
7B.C.H. IV (1880), p. 186, 





76 The Athenian Archons. 


chosen to go from Delos to Athens in Metrophanes’ year' was 
Φιλάνθης Φυλάσιος, a minor in 183/2 B.C. The second ambassador 
on the same occasion was Εὐαγίων Κοθωκίδης, the same no doubt 
who appears in C.I.A. II, togy (c. 150 B.C.), whose father, 
᾿Αλκέτης Evaly|/ovos Κοθωκίδης, was an epimeletes in the early part of 
the second cent. B.C.,* and whose uncle, [Π] αγίων Κοθωκίδης, in the 
neighborhood of 180 B.C., made a contribution for himself aud 
for his son ᾿Αλκέτης. ‘Phe third ambassador was Βύττακος 
Aaprrpeds. Tn Tehekrates’ year (Το τ B.C.) Βύττακος Λαμπ- 
t[p]e[vs] was epimeletes of the harbour at the Peiraieus’; in 
Herakleites’ year (95/5 B.C.) he was termed ὁ ἐ[πὶ τὴν dnp] οσίαν 
tp[a| meCav τὴν ἐν Δή[λῳ]": in the same year his brother, Πύρρος 
Πύρρου Λαμπτρεύς, who in Argeios’ first year (98/7 B.C. )' had been 
herald of the Areopagus, was στρατηγὸς ἐπὶ [τὰ ὅπλ]α." "The 
gymnasiarch at Salamis for Ergokles’ year’ was Θεόδοτος Εὐστρόφου 
Πειραιεύς, the same who in 103/2 B.C, furnished some fittings for a 
templethere.'” His brother, Ἱεροφάντης Εὐστρόφου ΠΕειραιεύς, appears 
ina list of names" published in the neighborhood of 125 B.C. 
His son was an epimeletes in the vicinity of roo B.C." Phe mover 
of a decree in Epikles’ year was Θεογένης Κὶ [αὐλλιμάχου Λευκονοεύς, 


whos? daizuter, Weliko, became the wife of ᾿Αθηνόδωρος Aigwveds.'' 


ZOLA, ΤΙ, 953, col, I, 1. 1023 see above p. 46. 

S5C.1.A. ΤΙ, 952, 1. 20, 

‘C.LA. TT, 984, 1. 38; ef. I, το 15 (ec, τοῦ B.C.) for ᾿Δλκέτης Edaylwvos 
Περιθοίδου 3. 

SC.TA. I, 985 Εἰ, col. I, 1. tr, 

§ C.I.A. II, 985 FE, col. IT, 1. 57 ἢ, 

ΤΌΤ, TI, 985 D, col. IT, 1. 16 f, 

SOQ.LA. ΤΙ, 985 Τὸ, col. IT, 1. 44; see also C.1.A. IT, 451, 1048, She daughter 
of Pyrrhos appears in C.I.A. IV 2, 477 d, 1, 32; see below p. 86. 

®C.LA. IT, 594. 


ΘΑ, IT, 595. 

"CLA. I, 1047, ἵν 126 

VOTA, IV 2, 952 b, le 17 1 ef. 988 Ὁ, le Se 
BOTA, IT, sod. 

MCT.A. IT, 2300. 

MC TA, IT, 985 Ὁ, col, IT, 1. 7, 








‘« 

fae 

Fy 
ὃ 
4 
Υ 


% 
τ 
| 
pe 
\f ἢ 
‘ot 
a 


i 
ὍΝ 














was 
udor 
αι 
her, 
rt of 
1 the 
aud 
ἄκος 
OL [LTT = 
» in 
σίαν 
ρρος 
een 
The 
ὄφου 
or a 
ears 
3.C, 


lwvos 


iter 











130/29 Before Christ. 79 


thesmothetes in the early part of the first century B.C.’ His son 
Athenophanes was an ephebe in 1190/8 B.C.? 


δ 68. Demostratos.’ 130/29 B.C. 


A Delphian decree passed in the archonshi,: of ᾿Αριστίων ᾿Αναξαν- 
δρίδα, at the time of the Pythian games,* proves that Demostratos, 
the Athenian contemporary of Aristion, belongs to the third year 
of an olympiad. In connection with his Fasti Delphici Pomtow 
has on several occasions’ discussed the location of Demostratos. 
From data not explicitly stated" he determines that the only two 
years open to him are 130/29 and 126/5 B.C. 134/3 B.C. he 
specifically excludes.’ Of the two years admissible he selects 
126/5 B.C., but as his view in this particular is based upon 
Homolle’s archon list his conclusion lacks cogency, ‘This has 
been already pointed out by Colin in his Notes de chronologie 
delphique who chooses 130/29 B.C, for Demostratos.* It will be 
seen that if we leave out 134/3 B.C. it is necessary that Demos- 
tratos occupy 13029 B.C,, inasmuch as no third year of an 


TOC.LA. 11, 863. 
7C.LA. IT, 469, 1. 105, 
3C.1.A. II, 551, 1. 40. 
“CLA. ΤΙ, 551, L. 52 ἢ 
*Mitth. XV (1890), p. 289; Phil. LIV (1895), p. 215 ff., pe 591 ff. 

δ Aristion belongs to the ninth priestship. In the year 1580 (Jahrb. f. cl. 
Phil. CXXXIX (1889), p. 546) there were extant for the period between 
168-7 B.C. and the beginning of the gth priestship at Delphi 29 annual 
archons besides a share of 15 others, who came between 168-7 B.C. and the 
end of the twelfth priestship (after 92-1 B.C. ; see Phil. LIV ( 1895), p. 591; 
B.C.H. XXII (1898), p. 148). On the other hand in the year 1898 there 
were extant between the beginning of the 9th priestship and the year 84-3 
B.C, (at the latest) thirty-five are’ons, if we include 5 names belonging to 
this period but as yet unassigned .. either a year or priestship (B.C.H, XXII 
(1895), p. 156 ff.). In this way the beginning of the 9th priestship 5 
limited to the period between 139-8 B.C. — and 129-8 B.C.4+-. The end ean 
be deterrrined by me with no such precision: it must however have beci: 
later than 125-4 B.C. and earlier than 98-7 B.C. The fact, if it be a fact, 
(Pomtow, Phil. LIV (1895), p. 216 and Jahrb. f. cl. Phil. CXLIX (1894), p. 
673) that several archons in the 9th priestship preceded Aristion, makes 
134-3 B.C. very improbable for him, 

*Phil. LIV (1895), p. 217. 
*B.C.H, XXII (1898), p. 147 ff 











78 The Athenian Archons. 


olympiad is unoccupied till we reach 114)3 B.C., which the 
stemma of the Aristion family probably excludes,’ and which is 
probably to be assigned to either Herakleides or Sosikrates. 

8 69. Lykiskos,’ Dionysios,’ Theodorides,‘ Diotimos,° 
Jason,® Nikias and Isigenes,’ Demetrios,* and Nikodemos.? 
129/8—122/1 B.C. 

By a piece of good fortune the secretary and the year of Jason’s 
archonship, as well as the secretary for Nikodemos’ year, are 
known, The priest of Serapis, too, for Nikias’ and Isigenes’ 
year is known." Above all we can prove that the archons given 
above follow one another in the order given; since C.I.A. III, 
1014 furnishes us with the list from Lykiskos to Demetrios," and 
we know the successor of Demetrios, Nikodemos, from C.I.A. 11, 
471, 1.6. ‘The secretary confirms the statement of Phlegon of 
Tralles that Jason was archon at Athens in the consulship at 
Rome of M. Plautius Hypsaeus and M. Fulvius Flaccus, 125/4 
B.C.” This being so, the year 129/8 B.C. ff. must be assigned to 
Lykiskos and his group. 


1 phil. LIV (1895), p. 216. 

7C.LA. TI, rorg; (1.6. 2296; BC.H. VI (1882), p. 495; X (1886), p. 34 

ΤΑ, III, rorqg; C.1.G. 2296; B.C.H. VI, (1882), p. 491, p. 495; XXII 
(1898), p. 147f. The Delphian archon, Pyrrhos, held office in 128-7 B.C. 

'C.LA. HII, rorg; ΙΝ 2, 1225 b; B.C.H. X (1886), p. 33; cf. VI (1882), p. 
347. °C.LA. III, 1to1g; Lebégue, Rech. sur Délos, p. 163; B.C.H. VIE 
(1883), p. 370. 

SC.LA. ΠῚ, torg; Il, 460, 625; Phlegon of Tralles, Mirabilia X, Rerum 
Naturalium Scriptores, ed. Keller I, p. 75 f. 

TO.LA. ΠΙ, rorg; ’A@qv. II, p. 134 (here written Eisigenes and not 
accompanied by Nikias) ; B.C.H. XVI (1892), p. 152. 

SC.LA. II, rorg; I, 471, 16. 9 CLA. 11, 471, 472; IV 2, 472 Ὁ. 

0 The priest of Serapis was Δημήτριος ‘Epynolwvos Μαραθώνιος, not Δημήτριος 
Ἕρμισίου Μαραθώνιος as I gave it in Cornell Studies, VII (1898), p. 48. 

N Of the last name, Demetrios, Koehler read on the stone—yunr—which 
was Dittenberger’s sufficient warrant for reading [An]uq7 [pros }. 

121 have to thank Conrad Trieber ( Literarisches Centralblatt, X LIX (1898), 
p. 1606) for calling my attention to the correction of the text of Phlegon 
made by Diels in his Sibyllinische Blatter, p. 2 ff. As emended the text 
reads: ἐγγενήθη καὶ ἐπὶ Ῥώμης ἀνδρόγυνος ἄρχοντος ᾿Αθήνησιν ᾿Ιάσονος, 
ὑπατευόντων ἐν Ῥώμῃ Μάρκον ἸΠλαυτίου[καὶ Σέξτου ἹΚαρμινίου] ‘Tyalou καὶ 
Μάρκου Φουλβίου Φλάκκου. The explanation Diels offers for the presence in 
the MS. of the bracketed excrescence is most plausible. I refer the reader 
to the place cited above : cf. also Cornell Studies, VII (1893), p. 61. 











SPIRES ἡ a Pea ae 


ae 


PU Ὁ ΤΕΕΊ ΣΤΟΝ 


Sa 





ena at we Ree ee a 2 



































Ἢ 121/0-120/19 Before Christ. 79 





4 
1 the $70. Eumachos,' 121/o B.C, 
ich is 4 An excerpt from Apollodoros’ chronicle, twice introduced by 
i Philodemos’ in his history of the Academic succession, has been 
noe) ᾿ deciphered by Gomperz as follows : 
pate 1 [TS]. Ka[p] ved [8] (0) δὲ κατὰ τὸν adr [6]v ἦ[ν] xp [νον] 
peaks : 3690s vids “Epuay[o] pov [Μ]7αραθώνιος, 
ae Τό τ᾽ ἄλλο <8e> π[ᾶν K]al τὸν [βίον] μάλισ]τα [δὴ] 
ange Ἔχων φ[ιλ] do [0] pov, r[B]e λόγῳ δ᾽ ἁ[πα]λώτερος, 
Aven Οὗτος δ᾽ ᾿Αρίστω[ν7ος μὲν ἢν ἀκηκοὼς 
“TI Τ[οῦ τ᾽ ᾿Εφεσίου β[ρ]αχύν rw’ Εὐβ[ούλ]ου χρόνον' 
ἍΝ d Τοῖς τ᾽ Αὐτολύ[κο] ισι[ν] τῷ τ᾽ ᾿Αμύντῃ (sic) πολλάκις, 
\. IL, ; Ἤδη προβεβηκὼς κ[αὶ] σχολῆς ἡγούμενος, 
a ide Ἵ Διον[υ]σίῳ τ᾽ οὐ σ[πάνιο]ν [ἐσχό]λα[σ᾽, aips Ἰθε[ὶς] 
ioval ἢ [ΤΊ}] [γ᾽ Ἱἀγχινο[ίᾳ] τἀνδρὸς [ἢ] καὶ τῷ λόγῳ. 
pele ᾿ Δεκάτῳ δὲ [τῇ ]s τοῦ Καρνεάδου μεταλλαγῆς 
θέν Ἷ Ὕστερον, ἐπ᾽] ἄρχοντος παρ᾽ ἡμῖν Εὐμάχου 
; Θαρί γηλι]ῶνος μηνὸς ἐξέλιπεν ----, 
ΩΝ If other things were equal, the archon EKumachos would have 
Ῥ. 34 to be assigned to rrg/8 B.C., the tenth year after the death of 
XXII 





ip Ἶ Karneades II, But seeing that Hipparchos occupies that year, 


32), p we must assume that the Karneades, from whose death the 
I. VIE reckoning is made, is Karneades I,* and must assign Eumachos 
to 1210 B.C. ‘Tlie context undoubtedly made it clear which was 
eru nt 
meant. 
d not $71. Meton.’ 120/19 B.C. ? 
On the basis of a resemblance between the inscription of 
LAT pos Meton’s year and one passed in the year of Dionysios μετὰ 
which ‘Gomperz, Jenaer Literaturzeitung, 1875, Ρ. 603 ἢ. Bucheler, Index, p. 16 
read the name as Hugamos. Preuner, Hermes, XXIX (1894), p. 554, 1. I 
1898), called attention to Gomperz’ correction: Pomtow, Phil. LIV (1595), p. 
ilegon 370 did likewise. All others have persisted in retaining the wrong form. 
asain * Bich. 1. c, p. 16 and p. 18. The repetition of the passage, like some of 
doovos, ; ἢ 
| its contents, still demands explanation, 
ov καὶ eas ᾿ 
nee in See above p. 74 f. 
reader *B.C.H. VII (1883), p. 340. 





80 The Athentan Archons. 


Λύκισκον (128/7 B.C.), Reinach' placed these two archons close 


together.’ Schoeffer places Meton in the neighborhood of 142 B.C. 


$ 72. Hipparchos® and Lenaios,' Aristarchos’ and Aga- i 
thokles," Menoites' and Sarapion,® = 119/8-118/7, 107/6--106/5, ‘ 
105/4~-104/3 B.C. ὃ 


Several groups of two archons each are furnished by certain 
well known ephebe lists. They are: Demetrios and Nikodemos, 
Hipparchos and Tenaios, Aristarchos and Agathokles, Menoites | 
and Sarapion, and Echekrates and Medeios. Of these the first 
pair belongs, as we have seen, to 123/2, 122/1 B.C., the last pair 
to 102/1, τοῖο B.C." The others require to be dated. For 
Lenaios, Aristarchos, Agathokles, and Sarapion we have the 


secretaries, and we know that Hipparchos, Aristarchos, and 





Pe 
ἢ 
Menoites were respectively the direct predecessors of Lenaios, / 
Agathokles, aud Sarapion,”” % 
zs τὰ εν στον BI a διελεῖν ee ce 4 
2 
i TRey. Arch. 1883, 2, p. 93. of 
2It may be only a coincidence, yet it is worth noting, that the priest of 
the Great Deities—a cult very closely allied to that of Serapis, Isis, and 
| Pes Anubis (B.C.H. VII (1883), p. 336)—for 161-0 B.C.? belonged to the tribe 
Τῇ Aiantis (C.1.G. 2270), and the one for 128-7 B.C. to Oineis (C.I.G. 2296): 
wit so perhaps the one for 120-19 B.C. to Pandionis—the tribe to which the 
j priest for Meton's year belongs. 
IQA. ΤΙ, 460. 
! ‘OLA. {τ 469; B.C.H. XVI (1892), p. 159. 
| 


ihe 8C.LA. II, 470; ᾿Αθήν 1V, p. 462; cf. B.C.H. VI (1882), Ὁ. 348, no. 74. The 
priest who made the dedication in this inscription is styled Αἰσχρίων 
i Αἰσχρίωνος τοῦ Διονυσίου Medrevs. The reason for the appearatice of the 





wi grandfather's name is to be found it B.C.H. VI (1882), p. 326, where we 
Ἷ find Αἰσχρίων Αἰσχρίωνος τοῦ Εὐβούλου Μελιτεύς Seeing that the former in- 
i scription was posted up in 107-6, the latter in τατ- B.C., there was consider- 

a able danger of confusion ; ef. B.C.H. VI (1882), p. 341, no. 50. 

[Ἢ ®C.LA. ΠῚ 470; IV 2, 1226 d; B.C.H. ΧἼΠῚ (1889), p. 269; Josephus, 
a Antiq. of the Jews, XIV, 8, 5. Ἶ 
| ΠΗ "CLA. II, 465; B.C.H. VI (1882), p. 349; VIT (1883), p. 268, Ἷ 
ἢ Β6.1.Α. ΠῚ 465, 595, 1.53; B.C.H. 1 (1879), Ὁ. 294. ᾿ 
| | ἰ * See below p. 86 f. 
| i See the inscriptions from the C.I.A. just cited, 

if 





Ἵ 





close 
B.C. 


Aga- 
06/5, 


rtain 
mos, 
oites 
- first 
- pair 

For 
> the 

and 
1210s, 


iest of 
is, and 
e tribe 
2296) : 
th the 


The 
σχρίων 
of the 
ere we 
ier in- 
isider - 


lephus, 


Pal 


a) > = ye Se ee ee wu ΕΣ 
SES BARR ES ES Eye 


oye Rata gS Sian ἘΣ 


£ 





119/8—104/3 Before Christ. 81 


Menoites and Sarapion cannot have come between 137/6 and 
109/8 B.C.; for the priest of Serapis for Menoites’ year was 
Ἱππόνικο[ς Ἱππο]νίκου Φλυεύς, a nanie which does not occur in the 
list of priests though this is complete for the period included.’ The 
secretary allows only two places to be considered in their connec- 
tion 105/4, 104/3 B.C. and 93/2, 92/1 B.C. The first of these is 
imperatively demanded by the evidence; for in Sarapion’s year 
the priests of Serapis still followed one another in the official 
order of their tribes. In τοῖο B.C. that order had already been 
discontinued.” Furthermore in the archonships of Aristarchos 
(107/6 B.C.), Menoites, and KEchekrates (τοῖο B.C.) the ὁπλο- 
paxos for the eplebes was Ἡρόδοτος Eireatos and the ἀφέτης, Καλλίας 
Αἰγιλιεύς.᾿ Besides, the ἀκοντιστής for Demetrios’ year, 123/2 B.C., 
having been the same as for Menoites’ year,’ the shorter interval is 
preferable. 105/4 and 104/3 B.C. may therefore be assigned with 
certainty to Menoites and Sarapion. 

Of the other two pairs, the tangencies of Hipparchos and 
Lenaios are all with Demetrios and Nikodemos (123/2, 122/1 
B.C.), and those of Aristarchos and Agathokles with Menoites 
and Sarapion (105/4, 104/3 B.C.), and Echekrates and Medeios 
(102/1, 101/0 B.C.). For the καταπαλταφέτης of Demetrios’ year, 
Καλχήδων Καλχ[ζή]δονος Περιθο[(]δης, was ἀφέτης in Hipparchos’ 
year, and Ἱέρων Ἡρακλείδου ᾿Αναγυράσιος, the ὑπηρέτης of Demetrios’ 
year, was ἀκοντιστής in Hipparchos’ year.” On the other hand we 
have already seen that the three archons Aristarchos, Menoites, 
and Echekrates have a common ὁπλομάχος and a common ἀφέτης. 
Since therefore we are allowed by the secretaries to assign either 
pair to 119/8, 118/7 or to 107/6, 106/5 B.C. there can be no doubt 
whatever that the earlier years are to be set down for Hipparchios 
aud Tenaios and the later years for Aristarchos and Agathokles. 


1 Cornell Studies, VIT (1898), p. 46. 
2 See (1.4. IT, 985 E, 1. 57. 
ΤΑ, II, 470, 465, 467. 

4C,1.A. IT, 471 and 465. 

5C.1.A. IT, 471 and 469. 








82 The Athenian Archons. 





In Agathokles’ year the paidotribes was Νέων ‘Agudvaios.' The 
same individual held the samme office in Herakleides’ archonship’ 
and in Sosikrates’ year,” ‘Therefore it seemed to me that these four 
archons, Aristarchos, Agathokles, Herakleides, and Sosikrates, 
formed a group whici could only bodily be moved and located. 
It was because of the supposed fact that the common paidotribes 
linked these archons together indissolubly, that in the Athenian 
Secretaries’ I assigned Aristarchos and Agathokles to 1109/8, 
118/7 B.C, and Herakleides and Sosikrates to the years immedi- 
ately following. But aman may have been paidotribes in years 
widely apart. Thus in 283/2, 275/4, and 272/1? B.C. the paido- 
tribes was ‘Eppddwpos ‘Eopriov ’Axapveis.” No other precedent than 
this is needed to warrant us in assuming that Νέων ᾿Αφιδναῖος 
could have been paidotribes in 114/3, 111/o, and 107/6 B.C.° 

The location of Agathokles has been a matter of much dispute.’ 
An Athenian decree, found embedded in Josephus’ Antiquities of 
the ‘ews, is dated by this archon. From the position of the 
document in the work® one would suppose that its contents had to 
do with Hyrkanos 11, high priest of the Jews from 69 to 40 B.C. 
Koehler in proposing the period 69-62 B.C. for Agathokles had, 
besides the name connections already mentioned, to contend with 
the difficulty that the kosmetes for Aristarchos’ year, Εὔδοξος 
Εὐδόξου ᾿Αχερδούσιος, seemed identical with the παῖς, Εὔδοξος Εὐδόξου 
Ἱπποθωντίδος φυλῆς who won a victory at the Theseia in Phaidrias’ 
year.” Salomon Reinach” added to these difficulties another by 
ΠΆΘΙΑ IV 2, 1226 ἃ. : Oo δὰ 

2C.1L.A, IV 2, 1226 ς. 

SC.LA. II, 1226. 


* Cornell Studies, VII (1898), p. 57; cf. Homolle, B.C.H. XVII (1893), p. 
153 f. 

5 See above p. 27. 

ὁ Τίμων Τιμάρχου Βουτάδης the paidotribes of 123-2 B.C. (C.I.A. II, 471) 
was kosmetes in 102-1 B.C. (C.I.A. II, 467). 

* See Koehler’s introductory note to C.I.A. II, 470. 

8 To the fact that it got misplaced may be attributed the addition to the 
name Ὑρκανός of that of the second Hyrkanos’ father, Alexandros; see 
Homolle, B.C.H. XVII (1893), p. 153, n. 1. 

CLA. II, 470, 1. 33 and 446, col, II, 1. 76. 

Ὁ Rev. Arch, 1883, 2, p. 99 ff. 








The 
hip? 
four 
ites, 
ted. 
ibes 
nian 
9/8, 
edi- 
ears 
ido- 
han 


vatos 


3.C, 
1ad, 
vith 
Jogos 
ὀόξου 
rias’ 
by 


» the 
866 








ἘΣ ΣΝΩ ΞΕ a ΞΞΣΣΞΞΕΞΣΕΞ: TT aT ee σον 
τον τοῖσιν Ἐν τον τ ΠΡ a is er cea aaa aa Son al 


---τ-ο- -- ..... 
































115/4 Before Christ. 83 


drawing attention to the tangencies of Θεόδοτος Διοδώρου Σουνιεύς, 
This individual, who was the mover of two Athenian decrees 
of Agathokles’ year, was identified by Reinaci with an epime- 
letes of Delos of the same name, whom Homolle located in 
Kchekrates archonship,' Homolle added yet another difficulty 
in showing that, not only was Διονύσιος μετὰ Παράμονον (who is 
now dated positively in r12/1 B.C.) joined to Agathokles by a 
common chairman of proedroi, Στρατοφῶν Στρατοκλέους Σουνιεύς, but 
also that Paramonos was linked to Polykleitos by the fact that 
Σωσίων Εὐμένους Οἰναῖος (who is now known for certain to have 
been priest of Dionysos in 113/2 B.C. and priest of Serapis in 
110/9 B.C.) was a priest at Delos in both years.?) When then in 
1893° he showed further that Polykleitos was archon in the 
neighborhood of tro B.C., and from the text of Josephus itself 
made it likely that Agathokles came in the 29th year of the 
priestship of Hyrkanos I‘ or in 106/5 B.C., the view of Koehler 
was pretty well demolished, It only remained to add the testi- 
mony of the finds at Delphi, through which we have recently 
learned that Ξενοκράτης ᾿Αγησιλάου, the archon there with whom 
Aristokles coincided, belonged to the period of the three half- 
yearly senators, and therefore to a time earlier than 84/3 B.C.,° 
to make it beyond all doubt that the Hyrkanos honored by the 
Athenians in Agathokles’ year was Hyrkanos I, high priest of 
of the Jews from 135? to 105? B.C.°® 


δ. 73. Νδυβίαβ. 115/4 B.C. 


We know that Nausias was archon at Athens in the year in 
which [dios Γαΐου ᾿Αχαρνεύς was priest of the joint cult of Serapis, 





'B.C.H. VIII (1884), p. 102 ff.; cf. B.C.H. XVII (1893), p. 152. 

7 B.C.H. X (1886), p. 25; cf. II (1878), p. 397 and VI (1882), p. 337f. 

5B.C.H. XVII (1893), p. 149 ff. 

*The phrase runs thus in Josephus (l.c.): ταῦτα ἐγένετο ἐπὶ ‘Tpxavod 
ἀρχιερέως Kal ἐθνάρχου ἔτους ἐνάτου μηνὸς Πανέμου. Homolle ingeniously 
supposes that in place of gth it had originally been 29th. 

5 B.C.H. XXII (1898), p. 147 ff and p. 160. 

5 The dates are quite uncertain ; see Homolle, B.C.H. XVII (1893), p. 156 f. 
TC.LG, 2295. 

















IN 


G 








IMAGE EVALUATION 
TEST TARGET (MT-3) 


G 
ς 


ΕΞ 


14 


125 














84 The Athenian Archons. 


Isis, and Anubis at Ποῖος. In the Athenian’ Secretaries I have 
shown that Gaios was priest in the year 115/4 B.C. 


§ 74. Herakleides® and Sosikrates.* 114/3 or 111/o B.C. 


These two archous are linked to each other and to Aristarchos 
(107/6 B.C.) by the common paidotribes Νέων ᾿Αφιδναῖος.  Βε- 
tween 133/2 B.C. and 95/4 B.C. the only vacant years are 120/19 ?, 
117/6, 116/5, 114/3, and 111/0 B.C. Thoughone can hardly say 
that all but the last two are impossible, they are at least much 
less probable. 


§ 75. Paramonos' and Dionysios,’ 113/2-112/1 B.C. 


In Dionysios’ archonship the consuls at Rome were lL. Cal- 
purnius (Piso) and M. Livius (Drusus).* ‘Fhis coincidence dates 
Dionysios with absolute certainty in 112/1 B.C.,° the year which 
the secretary also demands.” From C.I.A. II, 475 we know 
that Paramonos was the immediate predecessor of Dionysios." 


§ 76. Polykleitos” and Jason.” i10/9-109/8 B.C. 
From the list published in the Athenian Secretaries" it is evi- 


dent that Swotwy Oivatos was priest of Serapis in 110/09 B.C. The 
epimeletes of Delos for the year in which Sosion was priest was 





1C.1L.G. 2295 and B.C.H. VI (1882), p. 324, no. 15. 

2 Cornell Studies, VII (1898), p. 46. 

S3C.1.A. IV 2, 1226 c. 

*C.LA. I, 1226. 

5 See above p. 82. 

SC.LA. II, 475; B.C.H. VI (1882), p. 338. 

TCOILA. II, 475; B.C.H. XXI (1897), p. 600; cf, XXII (1898), p. 148. 

8 B.C.H. XXI (1897), p. 600. 

®Mommsen, C.I.L. I, p. 535. 

10 See A.J.P. XIX (1898), p. 314 f. 

 Swolwy Eduévovs Olvatos (B.C.H. VI (1882), p. 338, no. 41) I take to 
be the priest of Dionysos, the god to whom the dedication is made, not an 
ex-priest of Serapis in Paramonos’ year ; cf. Homolle, B.C.H. XVII (1893), 
p. 154. 

UCLA. I, 461; B.C.H. II (1878), p. 397; XIII (1889), p. 370; XVI 
(1892), p. 151 f.; XVII (1893), p. 149 and n. 2. 

!WCLA. II, 461; B.C.H. VI (1882), p. 323. 

4 Cornell Studies, VII (1898), p. 46 ff. 








| have 


C2 


irchos 
' Be- 
[19 ὃ, 
ly say 
much 


Cal- 
dates 
vhich 
know 





108/7-103|2 Before Christ. 85 


Διονύσιος Nikwvos Παλληνεύς.' We have abundant testimony’ that 
Dionysios was epimeletes in Polykleitos’ archonship, Therefore 
Polykleitos was archon in rrojog B.C. ‘his is the year de- 
manded by the secretary also, just as 109/8 B.C. is that demanded 
for Jason, the immediate successor of Polykleitos, by the priest of 
Serapis for his vear. 

In 1893 Homolle showed that the year of the accession of Philon 
to the headship of the Academy was that of Polykleitos. Inasmuch 
as Crassus, when praetor (111-09 B.C.), had attended the lectures 
of the predecessor of Philon, Kleitomachos, the terminus post 
quem was thereby fixed for Polykleitos.* 


§ 77. Demochares‘ and Theokles.* 108/7 and 103/2 B.C. 


From C.I.A. IV 2, 626 b we learn that Theokles was a near 
predecessor of Medeios (τοῖο B.C.).° The only vacant places at 
all suitable are 108/7 and 103/2 B.C. The two names [Θεοκλ]ῆς 
and [Προκλ]ῆς are equally good for the preamble of C.I.A. IV 2, 
477, a decree which belongs to about this time; but, inasmuch as 
the secretary is from the tribe Oineis, Prokles is impossible. 
Theokles should be restored, and is thereby fixed, through 
the secretary in 103/2 B.C. The other requirement for Theo- 
kles is almost as cogent. Among the ephebes in Delos for 
Theokles’ year’ was Σίμαλος Σιμάλου Ταραντῖνος, who in Echekrates’ 
year (102/1 B.C.) was enrolled among the foreign ephebes resi- 
dent at Athens.” A man could be an ephebe in two years only. 

The decree just cited is in praise of the ἐργαστῖναι." maideus who 


*B.C.H. 11 (1878), p. 397; XIII (1889), p. 370; XVI (1892), p. 151 ἢ, 

§B.C.H. XVII (1893), p. 149 f. 

*C.LA. IV 2, 477d. 

5C.LA. IV 2, 626 Ὁ; B.C.H. XV (1891), p. 261. 

®Theokles could not have been a wear predecessor of the Medeios who 
was archon in 85-4 B.C.? and following. 

7B.C.H. XV (1891), p. 261. 

°C.LA. II, 467, 1. 145; cf. Fougéres, B.C.H. XV (1891), p. 262. 

®That a peplos was made every year is shown by the scholiurr to Ar. 
Knights, 1. 566 ; cf. Sandys, Arist. Ath. Pol. 49, 1. 20, note. Koehler, i.owever, 
maintains that it was made only for the Great Panathenaia (Mitth. VIII 


(1883), p. 62). 








86 The Athenian Archons. 


decree extant for Demochares’ year' was of like character and of 
the same general time. ‘The secretary allows us as possibilities 
108/7 and 84/3 B.C. The latter year, however, is occupied in 
Schoeffer’s list. Besides, the name connections, though by no 
means decisive, are on the whole in favor of 108/7 B.C. ; for 
among the épyacriva: for Demochares’ year are: The daughter of 
Dionysios of Phlya, one of the Σαβαζιασταί for Theokles’ year.’ 
The grandfather of Diouysios appears among the contributors in 
183/2 B.C.;° the daughter of Theogenes of Lamptrai, whose 
grandfather also appears in 183/2 B.C. ;* the daughter of Pyrrhos 
of Lamptrai, who in 98/7 B.C. was herald of the Areopagus and 
in 96/5 B.C. was general ἐπὶ τὰ ὅπλα ; ἢ the daughter of Kallias of 
Bate and of Mikion of Kephisia. For the family of Kallias see 
Koehler, C.I.A. II, 445, p. 223, and for that of Mikion see above 
Ρ. 45. 

§ 78. Echekrates,° Medeios,’ Theodosios,® Prokles,’ Ar- 
geios,” Argeios,"' and Herakleitos.” 102/1-96/5 B.C. 


An inscription published in the C.I.A.” furnishes us with a list 
of the Delian and Athenian magistrates, who in the first évveernpis 
contributed ἀπαρχαί to the Pythian Apollo at Delos. This list is 
divided into eight captions by means of the seven archons above 
mentioned, and an eighth who immediately preceded Echekrates. 


1C.LA. IV 2, 477 d. 

27C.LA. IV 2, 626 b; cf. II, 956, 1. 8. 

3C.I.A. II, 983, col. I, 1. 140. 

1.4. II, 983, col. I, 1. 75. 

5 See above p. 76. 

®§C.L.A. 11, 457, 985 D, 1]. 17, 20. 

TC.LA. II, 467, 985 E, 1. 16; IV 2, 626 Ὁ, 1. 65; 1205 b?, 1206 Ὁ. 

8C.1.A. II, 985A, 1. 7, E, 1. 60. 

®C.LA. IT, 935 A, 1. 17, E, col. II, 1. 26; Lebégue, Rech. sur Délos, p. 156; 
B.C.H. X (1886), p. 36 f. 

C.I.A. II, 985 1), col. II, 1. 18; B.C.H. XXII (1893), p. 148 and 160. 

"C.ILA. II, 985 D, col. II, 1. 30, 468. 

NC.LA. II, [985 E, col. II, 1. 12], E, col. II, 1. 34, 468, 627, 1207; B.C.H. 
XV (1891), p. 263. 

13 (Δ1.Α. II, 985. 








Untocated Archons. 87 





and of 
bilities 
pied in 

by no 
es fOr 
hter of 
year.’ 
tors in 
whose 
yrrhos 
us and 
lias of 
ias see 
above 


> Ar- 


1 a list 
εετηρίς 
list is 
above 
crates. 





The following Delian inscription enables us to date the whole 
group :' 


e , 
ὑπάτων Γναίου Κορνηλίου Λεντόλου καὶ Ποπλίου Λικινίου Κράσσου, ἐπὶ 


ε “᾿ \ > 
Ἑρμαϊσταὶ, ᾿Απολλωνιασταὶ, Ποσειδωνιασταὶ, of γενόμενοι ἐπὶ 


ἐπιμελητοῦ δὲ τῆς νήσου Μηδείου τοῦ Μηδείου Πειραιέως, τὸν Ἡρακλῆν 
ἀνέθηκαν, ἀφιερώσαντες Ἡρακλεῖ καὶ ἸΙταλικοῖς, Cn. Cornelius Lentulus 
and P. Licinius Crassus were consuls at Rome in 97 B.C.’ Since 
the Roman consuls entered upon office in January,’ and all ordin- 
ary Attic magistrates in June-July, Medeios was epimeletes of 
Delos in either 98/7 or 97/6 B.C. From the list already referred 
to‘ we learn that in the first archonship of Argeios, Medeios was 
epimeletes of Delos. Therefore the first archonship of Argeios 
falls in either 98/7 or 97/6 B.C. Of these two years Koeller selects 
the latter, because by this selection a coincidence is established be- 
tween the évveernpis and two Pythiades (or the period between two 
quadrennial Delia). But if Sandys is right® and in 279 B.C. the 
Delia were celebrated, not in the third year of an olympiad, but 
in the second, two Pythiades would only coincide with the 
évveernpis when Argeios was archon for the first time in 98/7 B.C. 
That Argeios was archon for the first time in 98/7 B.C. is proved 
by the secretary for Medeios’ year. 


§ 79. Unlocated archons. 


The following are the unlocated archons of the second century 
B.C. 

Andreas. 

C.I.A. II, 1043. The name is doubtfully that of an archon, 
the content of the inscription is not ascertainable, and its date 
uncertain. An Andreas was epimeletes of Delos between 95 and 





1B.C.H. IV (1880), p. 190 f. I can find no evidence to support Homolle’s 
assertion that Medeios was epimeletes in both archonships of Argeios. 


2 Mommsen, C.1.L. I, n. 537. 

8 ποθ the Hermaisi.i were all Romans (B.C.H. VI (1882), p. 166, n. 2) 
and neither the Apolloniastai nor Poseidoniastai Athenians (B.C.H. VIII 
(1884), p. 110), it is natural to expect that the Roman consuls, not the 
Athenian epimeletes, defined the year, 

°C.LA. II, 985 D, col. II, 1. 14. 

4 Arist. Ath. Pol. 54, 1. 32, note. 


88 The Athenian Archons. 





88 B.C. (see Kirchner, Pauly-Wissowa, I, p. 2135 (4) ) and fig- 
ured in other connections about the turn of the second and first 
centuries B.C. From the common custom of making an ex- 
archon epimeletes at Delos, it is conceivable that Andreas, if 
archon, was archon in the last quarter of the second century B.C. 
A list of names accompanies that of this archon in C.I.A. II, 
1043. Among them appears Εὐκτήμων Βα[τῇθεν]. Euktemon was 
about 15 years old in Authesterios’ year (C.I.A. II, 445, col. II, 
1. 7 ff.). Hence his ἀκμή came in about 135 B.C. Andreas was 
probably his contemporary (cf. Kirchner, Rhein. Mus. LIII 
(1898), p. 388 f.). 

Andronides. 

ἘΦ. ’Apx. 1898, p. 10, A mere name published without any 
chronological indication whatsoever. 

Antiphilos. 

C.I.A. II, 405. About the middle of the second century B.C. 

Dionysios ὁ μετὰ — nv. 

C.I.A. II, 418. The secretary was Θεόλυτος [-- — O]ev. 

Dionysios ὁ pera δεῖνα. 

C.I.A. IV 2, 418b. ‘The secretary was Ἰάσων ᾽Αριστοκ[ρ —]. 

These both in all probability came later than the Dionysios who 
succeeded Nikophon (c. 200 B.C.), but I do not see how one can 
say more than that they belong to the second century B.C, The 
second, for anything I can find to the contrary, might be identi- 
fied with the Dionysios who succeeded Lykiskos in 128/7 B.C. 

(.).. enion, 

C.I.A. II, 623, 1. 6. The letter before the H is said by Koehler 
to have been a Z, T, or T. We have an archon Athenion fur- 
nished us by an Athenian kleruch inscription from the island of 
Skyros. Dittenberger (followed by Kirchner, Pauly-Wissowa, 
s. v.) holds that Athenion is a local archon, and cites as parallels 
C.I.A. II, 469 and 594. ‘These show that at Salamis a local archon 
existed, but C.I.A. II, 595 indicates that the Athenian archon 
alone might be used to date a Salaminian document. At Delos the 
Athenian archon alone was used and the presumption is in favor 
of the same being true for Skyros. The letter preceding the H 


li 
ή 
ΜΠ} 

ἴ i 

Ἷ 
τ 
i 
} 


W 





1 fig- 
first 
ex- 

s, if 

B.C, 

IT, 
was 

_ II, 
was 

LIII 


any 


3.C. 





Unlocated Archons. 89 


might conceivably be a @, If so, Athenion would come later than 
196 B.C., the year in which Athens got possession of Skyros. 

KX +: + ov, 

B.C.H. X (1886), p. 37 f. May be ascribed to the period 
166-95 B.C. perhaps. 

—lytades, 

Bticheler (Index Herc. Acad, Phil. p. 17, notes) places this 
archon in the first half of the second century B.C. 

ποῦ. 

B.C.H. Χ (1886), p. 37 £. May be ascribed to the period 
166-95 B.C. perhaps. 

- Os. 

C.I.A. II, 377. The man who made the motion was Λακράτης 
Μέντορος] -- (C.I.A. IV 2, 377), who was chairman of the 
proedroi in Symmachos’ year (C.I.A. IV 2, 417 b). - 0s should 
therefore be ascribed to the early part of the second century B.C. 

- phantes. 

Bucheler, Index, etc., p. 19, notes; Gomperz, Sitzungsb. d. k. 
Akad. d. Wissens. zu Wien, CX XIII (1890), VI, p. 84. At least 
seven years prior tothe death of Karneades. Perhaps some- 
where between 150 and 140 B.C. 

Phokion. 

C.I.A. IV 2, 463 c. Ascribed by Koehler to the second 
century B.C. 

Pleistainos. 

C.I.A. Ii, 1409. His full name was Πλείσταινος Swxdéovs 
Κεφαλῆθεν. In C.I.A. II, 840 there is the first letter II, the 
second perhaps A, and the third E of an archon’s name. Koehler 
suggests Πλείσταινος and ascribes the inscription to the end of the 
second century B.C. In it βα]σιλέως ᾿Αν[τιόχου] appears—perhaps 
Antiochos VIII Epiphanes, Philometor, Kallinikos, etc. (125-96 
B.C.) ; cf. Pomtow. Jahrb. f. cl. Phil. CXLIX (1894), p. 553, 


n. 95. 

T-. 

Bucheler (Index, etc., p. 17, notes) places T- in the firs. 
half of the second century B.C. 








go The Athenian Archons. 


C.I.A. IV 2, 407 Κ. 

The genitive of the archon's name ended in -- tojus. The sec- 
retary was from the tribe Ptolemais, Kirchner in his indices 
ascribes the inscription to the second century B.C. It may be- 


long to 189/8, 177/6, 153/2, 141/o, or 117/6 B.C. 


There are, besides, the two fragmentary names E - (C.I.A. II, 
1198), and Ka[l-] (C.I.A. II Add. Nov. 477 ¢), and the full 
name Aristeides (C.I.A. II, 1166) which belong somewhere in 
the third, second, and first centuries B.C. 








CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES. 









In this table the following signs are used: 1. An interrogation mark with italics to indicate 
an approximate dating. 2. An interrogation mark alone to indicate a preference for one of two 











































[he sec- or more possible years, 3, Italics alone to indicate a well assured, but not quite certain dating. 
indices 4. Roman type to indicate a well assured and practically certain dating, 5. An asterisk after a 
secretary's deme-name to indicate a restoration made by the author, 
may be- slice aceon ip cca gts eet coronene las ΣΡ ΒΨ πεν Ἢ 
ΑΝ | Archon, | Tribe. | Secretary. 
a ------------------- ets δα τι Sucteehtta es 
Ae TI, 307/6 Anaxikrates Aigeis ‘Avoias [5] 06[¢]amov Διομεεύς 
the full 306/5 Koroibos Aiantis Πάμφιλος Θεογείτονος Ῥαμνούσιος 
here in 305/4 Euxenippos Antiochis lnviveas os Δύκου ᾿Αλωπεκῆθε[ν] 
304/3 Pherekles ‘Antigonis ᾿Ἐπιχαρῖνος Δημοχάρους Γαργήττιος 
303/2 Leostratos  Erechtheis Διόφαντος Διονυσοδώρου Φηγούσιος 
302/1 |Nikokles Aigeis 'Νίκων Θεοδώρου Πλωθεύς 
301/0 Klearchos Ραπάϊοῃιϊβὀ Μνήσαρχζ[ος. ........ 7ου Προβαλίσιος 
300/9 Hegemachos Leontis | 
2y9/8 Huktemon Akamantis Θεόφιλος [Ξεν] ο[ Pav] ros Κεφαλῆθεν 
298/7 Mnesidemos Oineis 
297/6 Antiphates Kekropis 
᾿Αναρχία | 
296/5 Nikias Hippothontis | ὑλνν]ι ι[κρ]άτης Κρατίν[ου ᾿Αξην]!: [εὐὑς}Ὲ 
295/4 Nikostratos Aiantis -- Φαληρεύς" 
294|3 Olympiodoros Auntiochis 
293/2 Philippos § Antigonis | 
292/1 Lysias ‘Demetrias | 
291/0 Kimon Erechtheis | 
290/9 Diokles Aigeis 'Ξενοφῶ[ν ΝΊ]ικέου ᾿Αλαιεύς 
2898 Diotimos ‘Pandionis Δυσίστρατος [᾿Α]ριστο[μ]άχου Παιανιεύς 
2887 Isaios ‘Leontis 
287/6 |Huthios ‘Akamantis Ναυσιμένης Ναυσικύδου Χολαργεύς 
286/5 Xenophon  Oineis | 
285/4 Urios /Kekropis ‘Etgevos Καλλίου Αἰξωνεύς 
284/3  Telokles ‘Hippothontis .............cceee eee 
283/2 Menekles ‘Aiantis Θεόδωρος Avowbian [Τρικορ] ύ ύσιος 
282/1 Nixias Otr. |Antiochis Ἰσοκράτης ᾿Ισοκράτου ᾿Αλωπεκῆθεν 
281/o Aristonymos |Antigonis hee oateinan ς Αἰθαλίδης 
280/9 Gorgias ‘Demetrias | 
279/8 Anaxikrates Erechtheis 
2787 Demokles Αἰἱρείβ 
277|6 (.)...datos? (Pandionis | 
276/5 Kleomachos? Leontis rAd] θόνητος ᾿Αρχίνου Κήττιος 
275|4 Ῥοϊγεικίο Akamantis Χαιρεφῶν ᾿Αρχεστράτου Κεφαλῆθεν 
274/3 Hieron Oineis Φαινύλος Πανφίλου Ὀῆθεν 
2732 Eubulos ? ‘Kekropis 
272/1 Philoneos ? ‘Hippothontis 
271/0 Pytharatos ‘Aiantis 











1 From an n inscription not yet published. 





92 The Athenian Archons. 








rc ΄ Archon. Tribe. Secretary, 
270/9' Antiochis 
269/8 Antigonis 
268/7 Philokrates Demetrias Ἡγήσιππος ᾿Αριστομάχου Μελιτεύς 
267/6 Petthidemos rechtheis | 
266/5 Aigeis | 
265/4 Pandionis | 
264/3 Diognetos Leontis | 
263/2 Arrheneides Akamantis | 
262/1 Oineis | 
261/0 Kekropis | 
260/9 Hippothontis | 
We 259/8 Olbios Aiantis | —o[s....... Jos Ῥαμνού[σιος 
Ht) 2587 Antiochis | 
ἢ} 257,6 Antigonis 
A 256/5 Demetrias 
ἽΝ 255,4 Krechtheis | 
4 i 254/3 Kallimedes? Aigeis [Kad] Alas Καὶ λιάδου Πλωθεύς 
uf 253/2 Pandionis 
252/1 Thersilochos? Leontis ῈῸ᾽ Διόδοτος Διογνήτου Φρεάρριος 
ἢ 251/0 Akamantis 
ἢ 250/97 Oineis 
it ἢ 2498 Kekropis 
i 248/7 Diogetton Hippothontis Θεόδοτος Θεοφίλου Κειριάδης 
ΐ 247|6 Aiantis | 
246/5 C.1.A.IV2,371¢. Antiochis | = — Ei[reaios]* 
ΐ 245/4 — mon Antigonis | 
f 24.414. θῖν τὸς Demetrias —.... νον os Δημητρίο[υ] Ἱπποτ[ο] u[a] dys 
t 243/2 ‘Erechtheis . | 
242/1 Aigeis | 
241/0 Glaukippos  Pandionis Evdowvo[s ....«] ρίτου [Μυρρ]:ινούσιος 
240/9 | Leontis | 
239/8 | ‘Akamantis | 
238/7 C.LA.IV 2,373¢. Oineis ΠΡ. ἔνωνος Ἐπικηφίσιος 
237/6 Heliodoros Kekropis ‘Xapias Καλλίου "AGpove[¥]s 
236/5 Leochares Hippothontis | | 
235/4 Theophilos Aiantis Φίλιππος Κηφισοδώρου ᾽Α [didvatos | * 
234/3 Ergochares Antiochis Zuitrdos Διφίλο[υ] ᾿Αλωπεκ[ῆθεν] 
233/2 Niketes ‘Antigonis 





1 Unlocated. archons of this period : Agauias, Sosiatratos. 


? Unlocated archons of this period: A-, Alkibiades, (.?)...bios, Hagnias, Lysiades, 
Lysitheides, Pheidostratos, Pythokritos, Theophemos, Thymochares. 


ea a TAA A I EEE AA nn 








[a] dys 


σιος 


ysiades, 





Year | 


















Attalis 
| 





2. ἢ | Archon, Tribe, 
2321 ‘Antiphilos Demetrias 
231/0 Jason Krechtheis 
230/9 Kalli— Aigeis 
229/8 Menekrates Pandionis 
228/7 Diomedon Leontis 
227/6 Ptolemais 
2265 Kallaischros Akamantis 
225/4 Chatrephon  Oineis 
2243... ...ώ 5 Kekropis 
223/2 Diokles Hippothontis 
2221 Kuphiletos Aiantis 
221/0 Herakleitos Antiochis 
220/9 Archelaos Antigonis 
219/8' Demetrias 
218/7 | Ierechtheis 
217/6 Aischron Aigeis 
216/5 Kallistratos Pandionis 
215/4. Leontis 
214/3 Ptolemais 
213/2 ClA.[V 2,385 f2 Akamantis 
2121. Oineis 
211/0 Nikophon | ? 'Kekropis 
210/9 Dionysios? ‘Hippothontis | 
2009/8 | Aiantis | 
208/7 Antiochis 
207/6 Thrasyphon? Antigonis 
206/5 Patiades ‘Demetrias 
205/4 C.I.A. II, 385. Erechtheis 
204/3 | ‘Aigeis 
203/2 Antimachos? Pandionis 
2021 Phanarchides? Leontis 
ἐν 1/0 | | ‘Ptolemais 

00/9 Sosigenes? ‘Akamantis 
τοο δ Oineis 

198/7 | i\Kekropis 
197/6. 'Hippothontis 
196/5 | Aiantis 
195/4 | ‘Antiochis 
194/3 | 


Chronological Tables. 


Secretary. 


Φορυσκίδης ᾿Αριστομένου ‘A [λιμούσιος " 


᾿Αριστοφάνης Στρατοκλέους Κειριάδης 


Διονυσ -- -- - 


Μόσχος Μο[σχ —] Κυ[δα] θην(αιεύς) 


[᾿Αριστοτέλης Θεαινέτου Κε[ φαλῆθεν] 





- - του Παιανιεύς 


-ς Μενεστράτου Λαμπτρεύς 


'Χαιρ[ι]γένης [Χαι]ριγένου Μυρρινούσιος 














1 Unlocated archons of this period: Alexandros, Philinos, 


*Unlocated archonis of the third cent. B.C.: Antipatros, Philippides, Proxenides. 





94 The Athentan Archons. 








yg Archon, | Tribe. Secretary. 

193/2 Erechtheis 

192/1 Aigeis | 

191/0 Pandionis | 

190/9 | Leontis | 

189/8 ‘Ptolemais | 

188/7 Symmachos Akamantis ᾿Αρχικλῆς Θεοδώρου Θορίκιος 
187/6 Theoxenos Oineis | 

186/5 Zopyros Kekropis 'Μεγάριστος Πύρρου Algwve[v]s 
185/4 Eupolemos Hippothontis Στρατόνικος Στρατονίκ [ον ᾿Αμαξ]αντεύς 
184/3 Aiantis 

183/2 Hermogenes Antiochis | 

182/1 Timesianax Attalis [ - ᾿Αρι]στομάχου Προβαλίσιος 
18 1/0 Erechtheis | 

180/9' Aigeis 

179/8 | Pandionis | 

178/7 | Leontis 

177/6 | ‘Ptolemais 

176/5 Hippakos Akamantis | 

175/4 Sonikos Oineis Παυσανίας Βιονέλου Περιθοίδης 
174,3. | Kekropis | 

173/2 | ‘Hippothontis | 

I 72/1 ‘Tychandros Aiantis 'Σωσιγ[έ7νης Mevexpdrov Map [abdnos} 
171/0 De— ‘Antiochis 

170/9 Achatos ? ‘Attalis 

169/8 |Eunikos Erechtheis Ἱερώνυμ[ο9] Βοήθου Κηφισιεύς 
1687 Xenokles _—Aigeis ᾿Σθενέδημος ᾿Ασκ(λ)ηπιάδου Τειθράσιος 
167/6 Nikomenes? — Pandionis 

166/5 Lysiades? Leontis 

165/4 Pelops ‘Ptolemais Διονυσικλῆς Διονυσίου Ἑκαλῆθεν 
164|3 Euerg-— Akamantis | 

1632 Erastos Oineis 

162/1 Poseidonios Kekropis . 

161/o Aristolas ‘Hippothontis ger s Φιλωνίδου ᾿Ελευσίνιος 
160/9 |Aristaichmos Aiantis 
159/8 Antiochis 

1587 Attalis 

: 57|5 Anthesterios pera ’ 
158 kesh aia lPandtonis 

Mnesitheos 

154/3/| ‘Leontis 
153/2 2| ‘Ptolemais 











1 Unlocated archons of this period : —-lytades, -os, T-. 


| 

Da! 

Ai 
al 
ia) Bis 
: i 
a 








$ 
ξ]αντεύς 


αθώνιος] 


θράσιος 





Year Archon, 


fale ΡΞ ΞΡ 
hi Phaidrias' 
1498 
148/7 | 
147/ 
146/5 | 
| 
44/3 | 
| 
π᾿ 
41/0) 


— 


145 Philon ? 


a Zaleukos ? 


142 


ἘΣ - Sars an 2.0 


‘alo Antitheos 
139/8 Archon 
138/7 Epikrates 
137/6 Theaitetos? 
136/5 Nikomachos 
135/4 Xenon? 
134/3 Timarchos? 
133/2  Metrophanes 
1321 ‘Ergokles 
131/o |Epikles 
130/9 Demostratos 
129/8 Lykiskos 
1287 |Dionysios 
127/6 Theodorides 
126/5 ‘Diotimos 

25/ 

3. 


125/4 Jason 
Nikias and 


124/3 Isigenes 
123/2 | ‘Demetrios 
122/1 |Nikodemos 
121/o0 ‘Eumachos 
120/9 |Meton ? 
119/8 |Hipparchos 
118/7 |Lenaios 

II 7/6° 

116/5 

115/4 Nausias 


Chronological Tables. 


Tribe. | Secretary. 


Akamantis Μενεκράτης Χαριξένου Θορίκιος 
Oineis 
Kekropis 
Hippothontis 
Aiantis 
Antiochis 
Attalis | 

Erechtheis | 

Aigeis | 

Pandionis | 

Leontis 

Ptolemais | 

Akamantis | 

Oineis 

Kekropis | “ans Συπαλήττιος 
Hippothontis | 

Aiantis 

'Antiochis 

Attalis 

Erechtheis ᾿Ἐπιγένης Μοσχίωνος Λαμπτρεύς 
Aigeis | 

Pandionis [ΤΓοργ]ίλος Γοργίλου -- 
Leontis | 
Ptolemais [- -ὀ Blovrddys 
Akamantis | 
Oineis | 
‘Kekropis 
‘Hippothontis; - ᾿Αναξικράτου ᾿Ελευσίνιος 
‘Aiantis 
'Antiochis 
‘Attalis ᾿Ἐπιγένης ᾿Επιγένου Οἰναῖος 
‘Erechtheis 
|Aigeis 
\Pandionis 
‘Leontis [᾿]Πσίδωρος ᾿Απο[λλ] wriov Σκαμβωνίδης 
'Ptolemais 
|Akamantis ‘ 
Oineis 





1 May be ‘be placed i in 153-2 B.C. 
3 Unlocated archons of this period: Andronides, Antiphilos, Dionysios μετὰ -ν, 


Dionysios μετὰ δεῖνα, (. 
3 Unlocated archons of this period: Andreas, Pleistainos, 


)..enion, KX,..ov, τοῦ, —phantes, 








z aes wae: a 
~ δ fling Poe “2 ταν μῦν Ἐπ peta γε 
-- “ - ὦ pen 
ἢ aoe =a - 
ΚΣ: a 
- ‘ ς ἊΝ = τ - ‘ 5 z a 
ire RRR TOI a = —— a 5 — == 
‘ : 


ESSE ea A TST NESE CE 


is 


i 





The Athenian Archons. 











Secretary. 





“| 
| 
| 
| 
ἣν a a ΨΟΝΟΕΑΨΕΗΝΘΟΟΡΡΒΕΞΙΤΕΝΕΣ <a 
| 
| 
| 


'Λάμιος Τιμούχου ῬῬαμνούσιος 
᾿Ἐπιφάνης ᾿Επιφάνου Λαμπτρεύς 
| — Διονυσοδώρου ᾿Αγκυλ [θεν] 


Τελέστης Μηδείου Παιανιεύς 
Ἑὐκλῆς Ἐενάνδρου Αἰθα[λίδη]ς 


'Σοφο[κλ] ἣς Δημη[τρίο] υ Ἰφιστιάδης 
[»ο»-Ξ-- σή]θένης Κλεινίου Κοθωκί[ dys] 


‘Hippothontis Φιλίων Φιλίωνος ᾿Ελευσίνιος 


96 
Year | Archon | Tribe 
B.C. | . | ἔξ. 

| | 
114/3 Herakleides? Kekropis 
113/2 Paramonos (Hippothontis | 
112/1 Dionysios |Aiantis 
111/o Sosikrates? Antiochis 
110/9 Polykleitos (Attalis 
109,8 Jason ‘Erechtheis 
108/7 Demochares |Aigeis 
107/6 Avistarchos Pandionis 
106/5 Agathokles Leontis 
105,4 Menoites Ptolemais 
104/3 Sarapion /Akamantis 
103/2 Theokles Oineis 
102/1 Echekrates Kekropis 
101/0 Medeios 
100/9' Theodosios |Aiantis 
99/8 Prokles Antiochis 
98/7 Argeios Attalis 
97/6 Argeios Erechtheis 
96/5 Herakleitos Aigeis 





1 Unlocated archons of the second cent. B.C. : Phokion, E-?, Ka[1l-]?, Aristeides?. 








| 
| 
| 
| 
| 








7 REM BA NOR 


isa 


I ἘΕΦΟΜῸ απ ομευτ. Αμυσδνα Φαρα καρ. τ τοσοῦ. τοὶ κῖρτι 





γρεύς 


β [ῆθεν] 
nls 


Ιφιστιάδης 
wi | Sys} 


-]?, Aristeides?. 


eed 


LENA Sa 


FMEA tt 


INDEX OF NAMES OF ARCHONS. 


A-, 35. 
Achaios, 59. 
Agasias, 35. 
Agathokles, 80. 
Aischron, 41. 
Alexandros, 35. 
Alkibiades, 36. 
᾿Αναρχία, I. 
Anaxikrates, I. 
Anaxikrates, 22. 
Andreas, 87. 
Andronides, 88. 
Anthesterios, 67. 
Antimachos, 52. 
Antipatros, 36. 
Antiphates, 1. 
Antiphilos, 41. 
Antiphilos, 88. 
Antitheos, 70. 
Archelaos, 39. 
Archon, 70. 


Argeios (1) and (2), 86. | 


Aristaichmos, 65. 
Aristarchos, 80. 
Aristeides, go. 
Aristolas, 64. 
Aristonymos, 22, 
Arrheneides, 29. 
Athenion ?, 88. 
(.?)...bios, 36. 
Chairephon, 41. 
De-, 60. 
Demetrios, 78. 
Demochares, 85. 
Demokles, 22. 
Demostratos, 77. 
Diogeiton, 31. 
Diognetos, 29. 
Diokles, 7. 
Diokles, 41. 
Diomedon, 44. 
Dionysios, 53. 
Dionysios μετὰ Λύκισκον, 
8 


78. 
Dionysios μετὰ Παράμο- 
νον, 84. 
Dionysios μετὰ -ην͵ 88. 
Dionysios μετὰ δεῖνα, 88. 
Diotimos, 9. 
Diotimos, 78. 


E-, go. 
Echekrates, 86. 


| Epikles, 74. 

_ Epikrates, 70. 
Erastos, 64. 

| Ergochares, 40. 
Ergokles, 74. 

' Eubulos, 25. 
Euerg-, 64. 
Euktemon, 1. 
Eumachos, 79. 
Eunikos, 61. 

| Euphiletos, 41. 

| Kupolemos, 57. 
Euthios, 9. 

Euxenippos, 1. 

Glaukippos, 34. 

Gorgias, 22. 

| Hagnias, 36. 

'Hagnctheos, 68. 

| Hegeimachos, 1. 

| Heliodoros, 39. 

| Herakleides, 84. 

Herakleitos, 41. 

| Herakleitos, 86. 
Hermogenes, 58. 
Hieron, 23. 

| Hippakos, 59. 
Hipparchos, 80. 

| Isaios, 9. 
Jason, 43. 
Jason, 78. 

| Jason μετὰ Πολύκλειτον, 

| 84. 

| Ka[1-], 90. 

| Kallaischros, 49. 

| Kalli-, 43. 

| Kallimedes, 31. 

| Kallistratos, 50. 

| Kallistratos, 67. 

| Kimon, 6. 

| Klearchos, 1. 

| Kleomachos, 22. 

Κλ, ἁ οὐ, 89, 

| Koroibos, 1. 
(.)...laios, 22. 

| Lenaios, 80. 

| Leochares, 40. 

| Leostratos, I. 

| Lykiskos, 78. 

| Lysiades, 36. 

| Lysiades, 62. 

| Lysias, 6. 

| Lysitheides, 37. 


| —lytades, 89. 

' Medeios, 86, 

| Menekles, 21. 
Menekrates, 44. 

| Menoites, 80, 

| Meton, 79. 

| Metrophanes, 74. 

| Mnesidemos, 1, 

| Mnesitheos, 67. 

| —mon, 33. 

| Nausias, 83. 

| Niketes, 40. 

| Nikias, 1. 

| Nikias and Isigenes, 78. 
Nikias ’Orpuvevs, 21. 

| Nikodemos, 78. 

| Nikokles, 1. 

| Nikomachos, 65. 

| Nikomenes, 62. 

| Nikophon, 53. 

| Nikostratos, I. 

| Olbios, 30. 

| Olympiodoros, 1. 
/—on, 89. 

| —os, 89. 

| Paramonos, 84, 

| Patiades, 50. 

| Peithidemos, 28. 

| Pelops, 64. 

| Phaidrias, 67. 

| Phanarchides, 53. 
'_phantes, 89. 

| Pheidostratos, 37. 

| Pherekles, I. 

i Philinos, 37. 

| Philippides, 37. 

| Philippos, 1. 

| Philokrates, 27. 

| Philon, 69. 

| Philoneos, 27. 

| Phokion, 89. 

| Pleistainos, 89. 

| Polyeuktos, 23. 

| Polykleitos, 84. 

| Poseidonios, 64. 

| Prokles, 86. 

| Proxenides, 37. 
Pytharatos, 27. 
Pythokritos, 37. 

| vesves 5, 4I. 
Sarapion, 80. 

,Sonikos, 59. 











98 The Athenian Archons. 





Sosigenes, 54. Theokles, 85. | Tychandros, 60. 
Sosikrates, 84. Theophemos, 38. Urios, 18, 
Sosistratos, 37. Theophilos, 4o. Xenokles, 61. 
Symmachos, 55. Theoxenos, 55. Xenon, 73. 

T-, 89. Thersilochos, 31. Xenophon, 17. 
Telokles, 19. Thrasyphon, 51. Zaleukos, 69. 
Theaitetos, 73. Thymochares, 38. Zopyros, 55. 
Theodorides, 78. Timarchos, 73. 

Theodosios, 86, Timesianax, 58. | 


DECREES SPECIALLY DISCUSSED. 


. IV 2, 371 ¢, p. 33. | C.I.A. IV 2, 385 f, p. 50. 
. IV 2, 373 ¢, Ὁ. 35.| C.LA. II,, 385, p. 52. 

. IT, 390, p. 38. C.I.A. IV 2, 407 k, p. a0, 
.I 


ς; 
Cc. 
ς. 
Cc. V 2, 407 b, p. 38. 


μὰ ᾿ 


INDEX OF TOPICS. 


The index refers particularly to subjects on which this study 
has attempted to throw new light. 


Alexandros, revolts from Antigonos 
Gonatas, 33. 

Amynomachos, executor to Epicurus, 
30. 

Antipatros, King of Macedon, 
dered, 7 f. 

Areus I of Sparta, killed, 28. 

Aristomachos, tyrant of Argos, aids 
Athens, 33. 

Asklepios, dedications to, 31 f., 49. 


mur- 


Athens, recovers its independence, | 


12 ff., 48. 
Bithys, courtier of Lysimachos, 21. 


Chremonidean War, set on foot, 28 f. | 


Crassus, praetorship of, 85. 

Deinarchos, cureer of, 2; returns from 
exile, 15. 

Delos, comes under Athenian control, 
62 f. 

Delphi, archons of dated, 73 f., 77 f., 
78 π. 3. 

Demetrios Poliorketes, captures 
Athens, 4; King of Macedon, 5; 
gives Athens its autonomy, 12, 15. 

Demochares, opposes Demetrios, 15 f. 

Eleusinia celebrated, 42. 

Epicurus, refers to revolt from Deme- 
trios, 9n. 2; writes to Mithras, 18 f; 
to Mus?, 19; letter of, 22; dies, 27. 

Euandros and Telekles, succeed La- 
kydes in the Academy, 50 f. 

Eubulos, the Academic philosopher, 
is born, 35. 

Eurykleides and Mikion, come to the 
front at Athens, 40; are murdered 
by Philip, 40; manage the finan- 
ces, 44. 

Hyrkanos II, high priest of the Jews, 
commended by the Athenians, 82 f. 

Karneades, the son of Philokomos or 
Epikomos, resigns the headship of 
the Academy and dies, 74 f. 

Karneades, the son of Polemarchos, 
head of the Academy, 74 f. 

Kleanthes, head of the Stoic school, 
30. 

Kleitomachos, the Academic philoso- 
pher, life of, 68 f. 

Kleruchs at Delos, first victory of at 
the Panathenaia, 66. 

Krates of Tarsos, head of the Acade- 


my, 74 f. 


‘Lachares, makes himself tyrant of 

| Athens, 3 f.; cruelty of, 11; expul- 

| pulsion of a subject of general re- 
joicing, 12. 

'Lakydes, the Academic philosopher, 
dies, 50f. 

' Lemnos, under Athenian control, 20. 

_Lykon, the Peripatetic philosopher, 

| makes a contribution, 47. 

Metrodoros, disciple of Epicurus, 

dies, 22. 

| Mithras, controller of Lysimachos, 19, 

_Moschion, the Academic philosopher, 

| dies, 57 n. 2. 

| Mus, clave of Epicurus, 19. 

|Museion, garrisoned by Antigonos 

| Gonatas, 13, 21; by Demetrios, 15 ; 

᾿ς stormed by Olympiodoros, 9, 12, 16. 

| Parian Chronicle, 1, 29. 

| Peiraieus, held by Demetrios’ soldiers, 

| 12 ff.; evacuated, 17. 

| Peplos, for Athena made annually, 85. 

| Phaidros, goes on an embassy to 

| Ptolemy I, 15; is general, 18. 

|Philon, the Academic philosopher, 

| life of, 65 ff. 

| Ppovpia, held by Demetrios’ soldiers, 

| 13. 

' Polemon, the Academic philosopher, 

| dies, 27 f. 

| Ptolemais, created, 41. 

| Ptolemy Euergetes. has dealings with 

| Athens, 49. 

| Pyrrhos, at Athens, 13. 

| Roman Chronology, tangencies with, 
61, 78, 84, 87. 

Skyros, archon at, 88. 


| Social War, neutrality of Athens 
| during, 43. 

| Soteria, instituted, 23 f. 

|Sotion, announces the Soteria at 
| Alexandria, 24, 25 ἢ. I. 
|Strombichos, aids Athens, 16; is 


cominended for his services, 17, 21. 
Telekles and Euandros, succeed La- 
kydes in the Academy, 50 f. 
Temenos, consecrated to the Demos 
and Graces, 49. 
| Tenos, again admitted to ἰσοτέλεια 
with Athens, 18 n. 4, 20. 
Zeno, founder of the Stoic school, 
| dies, 29 f. 




















art 
ST ὩΣ 





The Macmillan Company’s New Books on Greek Antiquities, etc. 














The History of Greece. 


From its Commencement to the Close of the Independence of the Greek Nation, 
By ApoLF Hoim. In four volumes. Price per set, $10.00 net. Just ready, 


Vol. I. Up to the end of the Sixth Century, B. C. Vol. 11. The Fifth Century, B.C. Vol. III. 
The Fourth Century, B. C., Up to the Death of Alexander, Vol. LV. The Grieco-Macedonian Age, 
from the Death of Alexander to the Incorporation of the last Macedonian Monarchy in the 
Roman Empire. 


“A succinct account of Greek history . . . indispensable to all students and teachers of 
Greek history who respect their work.”— Zhe Nation. 


‘As a store of information brought up to date with indefatigable industry and conscientious 
fidelity, the work is invaluable.’—yhe Evening Telegraph, Phila. 


A Hand-Book of Greek Sculpture. 


By ERNEST A. GARDNER, formerly Director of The British School of Archeology 
at Athens. In one volume. Cloth. Price, $2.50. For greater convenience 
the First Part issued more thar a year ago, and the Second Part only recently 
published, are bound in one, but those who already have the first volume can 
purchase the second separately if preferred at $1.25. 


A reviewer'in The Nation comments :—‘‘It is concise, yet thoroughly readable, and its half- 
tone illustrations are uniformly good. In this book we have for the first time in Englisha 
thoroughly competent history of Greek sculpture. It isa pleasure to be able to recommend al- 
most without qualification a beok on a subject which has been much at the rey of the incom- 
petent and the reckless,” . 


Pausanias’s LGescription of Greece. 


Transiaied with a Commentary by J. G. FRazeR, M.A., LI,.D., (Glasgow), Fel- 
low of Trinity College, Cambridge. In six volumes, 8vo. Price $30.00 net. 
Illustrated with about Thirty Maps and Plans, Four Photogravure Plates, and 
over Two Hundred Engravings in the Text. 


The work is divided as follows :—Vol. I. Introduction, ‘Translation, Critical Notes on the Greek 
Text. Vol. 11. Commentary on Book I, (Attica.) Vol. IIT, Commentary on Books II-V. (Ar- 
golis, Laconia, Messenia, Elis I.) Vol. Iv. Commentary on Books VI-VIII. (Elis II., Achaia, 
Arcadia.) Vol. V. Commentary on Books IX, Χ. (Boeotia, Phocis.) Addenda, Vol. VI. In- 
dices. Maps. The volumes are not sold separately, 


In this work the aim has been to give, first, a faithful and idiomatic rendering of Pausanias, 
and second, a Commentary which shall illustrate his description of ancient Greece by the light 
of modern research. The general purpose has been to presenta fairly complete picture of an- 
cient Greece, its monuments and its scenery, so faras that can be done from a study of the de- 
scriptions of classical authors, the existing remains of antiquity, and the appearance of the 
country at the present day, 


The Sculptured Tombs of Hellas. 


By PERCY GARDNER, Litt.D., Professor of Classical Archeology and Art in the 
University of Oxford. Imperial 8vo, Cloth. Price $8.00. With 30 plates 
and 87 engravings in the text. 


From The Nation :—'' This beautiful book is welcome to all who believe in classical archeology 
as a study which may bring into prominence the humanitarian side ,of classical studies. It is 
equally serviceable for the general reader and for the scholar, since it deals competently with 
the whole subject in hand, without being voluminous. Of its 259 pages, nearly fifty are occupied 
by the engravings in the text, which are a wonderfully complete supplement to the ety well- 
executed and selected full-page plates. Professor Gardner has successfully studied a revity 
which sacrifices nothing essential because it suppresses all labored descriptions of monuments, 
and depends upon adequate representations of the monuments themselves.” 





PUBLISHED BY 


The Macmillan Company, 66 Fifth Avenue, New York. 





THE 


Cornell Studies in Classical Philology 


EDITED BY 


BENJAMIN IDE WHEELER, CHARLES EDWIN BENNETT, 
AND GEORGE PRENTICE BRISTOL 





I. The CUM-Constructions: their history and functions, by 
William Gardner Hale. Parti: Critical, 1887. Part ii: 
Constructive, 1889. 

Out of Print 
II. Analogy and the Scope of its Application in Language, by 
Benjamin Ide Wheeler, 1887. 
Out of Print 
MII. The Cult of Asklepios, by Alice Walton, 1894. 
Price 80 cts. 
IV. The Development of the Athenian Constitution, by George 
Willis Botsford, 1893. 
Price $1.50 
V. Index Antiphonteus: composuit Frank Lovis van Cleef, 


1895. 
Price $1.00 


VI. Studies in Latin Moods and Tenses, by Herbert Charles 

Elmer, 1898. 
Price $1.50 

VII. The Athenian Secretaries, by William Scott Ferguson, 
898. 
359 Price 50 cts. 

VIII. The Five Post-Kleisthenean Tribes, by Fred Orlando Bates, 
1898. 


Price 50 cts. 


IX. Critique of Some Recent Subjunctive Theories, by Charles 
Edwin Bennett, 1898. 


Price 50 cts. 


Just Appeared. 


X. The Athenian Archons of the Third and Second Centuries 
Before Christ, by William Scott Ferguson, 1399. 


Price 75 cts. 


PUBLISHED FOR THE UNIVERSITY BY 


The Macmillan Company, 66 Fifth Ave., NewYork. 






















logy 


‘ions, by 
Part ii: 


1age, by 


George 
n Cleef, 
Charles 
erguson, 
lo Bates, 


Charles 


enturies 





